Thursday, October 30, 2014

"Every set of beliefs introduces its own logic and its own constraints."- The origins of Western Liberalism, Larry Siedentop, 2014

"History is written by many people and it can take centuries but when stories are recorded, and it can take centuries, but when stories are recorded and passed on through generations they will eventually come out.

After the searing fire of the holocaust despite the intensity of that heat not everything was nor can everything be burnt." Andrew Denton, Who Do You Think You Are, 2014

The question is will history so diligently passed on through generations be taken note of, even if indeed it is able to reflect accurately the past? Has humanity given the vast historical evidence before us able to determine the specific cultural why and how the fuel is gathered and in turn who will be the next holocaust perpetrator and victim.

"Every set of beliefs introduces its own logic and its own constraints."

Distinguishing Spiritual from Temporal Power, Inventing the Individual, The origins of Western Liberalism, Larry Siedentop, 2014

When you claim to have rationally derived a point of view or behavior this is only from your perspective, individual, group, culture, nation.

" a decision scientist, “rational” means “consistency with
some model.” Rational decisions are not necessarily dispassionate,
nor well reasoned, nor selfish. They are not even necessarily good
decisions, from others’ perspectives. They simply are consistent."

So, as we are not Gods, well most of us, to determine an argument or an individual, group, culture, nation view or behavior rational or irrational is limited by our own bounded rationality - by our limited cognitive abilities and "structures of the environment" within which we make those decisions.

"structures of the environment" our beliefs culturally derived via cultural foundation code (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) with its own specific logic and constraints.

So if I consistently say:

1+1 = 3, and

3 does not equal 2+1

is this rational?

No because of the "structures of the environment" within which I exist.

So if I consistently say:

Islam does not inform terror daily, although I have counted the bodies and those who have carried out the atrocities continually claim to be Muslims and are proven to be Muslims, adherents of Islam, and both they and I can point to the Islamic cultural codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) which authorises and justifies Islamic terror. and

I have counted the bodies and those who have carried out the atrocities continually claim to be Muslims and are proven to be Muslims, adherents of Islam, and both they and I can point to the Islamic cultural codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) which authorises and justifies Islamic terror, Islam does not inform terror daily.

is this rational?

Yes because of the "structures of the environment" within which I exist.

"Every set of beliefs introduces its own logic and its own constraints."

Cultural relativism, ethical nihilism pervading Western Democratic public policy determines:

'Every belief is sacred,
Every belief is great.
If a belief is wasted,
God/Cultural Relativists/Multiculturalist gets quite irate.'

All beliefs, particularly Religious are to be allowed into the Public Square without restriction because the Western Democratic cultural relativist policy makers determine what is rational to one although irrational to another is still rational - and therefore we should and can all be happy to live with irrationality as we are irrational ourselves when viewed from the balcony of another set of beliefs.

No matter how diametrically opposed the secular and religious ethical constructs are Western Democratic policy makers are adhering to early Christian Tertullian's (160 – c. 225 AD) view 

"We worship the one God .... There are others whom you regard as gods; we know them as demons. Nevertheless, it is a basic human right that everyone should be free to worship according to his own convictions. No one is harmed or helped by another mans religion. Religion must be practiced freely,.."

What happened? Did Christianities "set of beliefs", "its own logic and its own constraints." once Christianity attained access to societal power via Constantine's conversion to Christianity and even prior, even whilst being subject to persecution themselves and decrying the unfairness of such persecution respect "a basic human right that everyone should be free to worship according to his own convictions. No one is harmed .... by another mans religion. Religion must be practiced freely,.."? No Christians did not. The fact some moderate Christians even possibly in the majority at the time may have abhorred the destruction of Others temples and murder of Other did the terror stop? No it did not.

Where Christianity is able to influence political power as in Uganda what is the result?

"As of January 2014, homosexuality is illegal in Uganda and carries a minimum sentence of two years in prison and a maximum of life."

"Hon. Benson Obua Ogwal (UPC, Moroto), was excited as he moved the Bill for its Second Reading. 
“Ugandans have been anxiously waiting for this Bill. This day will be good day for all Ugandans,” he said."
Parliament (Uganda) outlaws homosexuality

"The court (Supreme Court) unambiguously said that, in considering whether someone’s religious freedom is being violated, it may ignore traditional constitutional limits and instead invoke a much higher standard that, in its opinion, is required by statute. Because of this higher statutory standard – under the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – the court’s 5/4 majority ruled that for-profit corporations may exercise religious objections to deny birth control coverage to female employees."
Why “Religious Freedom” Has Gotten So Out of Hand By Dave Niose Richard Dawkins Foundation Jul 9, 2014

Why are just the two examples above out of so many examples important. They show cultural wars are never over until one one or other of diametrically opposed ethical constructs are remove from the Public Square. If you think Christianity are benign even positive this may be the case in specific circumstances of help for the poor but as we continually see this is never the whole story and the poor can and have been utilised as a foil for 

The is a continual struggle in the United States to keep Christianity from 

Does any culture in time and space allow the coexistence of 'evil', demons within the same Public Square with alacrity. 

It has taken centuries of horrendous societal schism and counter terror to remove Christianity from temporal

Western Democracies are suffering from a dangerous misconception

So in Western Democracies exists a belief Religious Freedom is a good, despite whatever cultural construct of Other inclusive of women are contained within that specific Religions codex (beliefs-logic constraints(determinants of consistent, constant cultural behavioral variance)).

Not to undermine the veracity of the belief Religious Freedom is a good, whatever a Religion informs within the Public Square diametrically counter to existing ethics are treated as at worst a crime and determined erroneously as not specifically derived from the ethical constructs of the Religion itself even though clearly such adherent acts can be directly linked back to Religious codex authorisation and justification.

My belief is one or more of Western Democracies beliefs are irrational, dangerous and need changing for logic and constraints to inform a peaceful, secure and enabling reality(that's another story) for all inclusive of women.

Laws must therefore be enacted which exclude secular or religious dogma/organisations from the Public Square if anywhere within their codex exist deleterious constructs of Other, inclusive of women.

How do you go about it. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child...

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

ASIO supporting a genocide and misogynistic construct is not a good. Why You Should Care?

Source: Dying in the Name of Honor By Ruby Ali-Strayton

A burqa ban would have negative security implications, says ASIO report SMH by Peter Hartcher October 29, 2014 - 8:56AM

It is the same logic as determining preventing overt displays of adherence to Nazism by banning the clothing the Nazi wore as symbols of their devotion in the 1930's 1940's would encourage terrorism. 

You really believe ISIS appeared from a culture-less space? It is psychologically impossible.

Clothing are not apolitical they send a message particularly to fellow adherents - conform. More importantly is what the burqa and other specified Muslim womens clothing inform as to the nature of the Muslims women condition in life. So what there are only a 'few' altruistic cultural enforcers there only ever are. It is what the clothing represents and promotes.

ASIO your logic would still have cigarette advertising beamed to us over our communication systems. We cannot stop cigarette advertising because smokers will feel bad about themselves and the cigarette companies will sue. This is good policy in the long run? 

ASIO think what comes along with allowing this construct in the streets in the long run, not just the short term, decreased terror or increased terror - that is the point. What is this construct enforcing in the Muslim community peace and harmony? 

Plato's skimmers in our security service what hope have we got.

Anyone who saw the SBS documentary on Aceh last night would determine such symbols of acceptance of responsibility for Mans lust and actions must be removed from the Australian Public Square and has no place in a Democratic society which believes in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for men as well as women.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Rowan Atkinson Reflects upon Blasphemy Laws Under a Different Name.

"It was one of Lincoln’s ways of working out his chief value to the country, and that value was his clear sense from the start it was our democratic scheme that was at stake, and that if it was to be saved, every citizen who could aid must help to give all that was in them.

Lincoln seems to have put it something like this to himself:

“Everybody in the country has had a part in bringing this thing about; everybody feels they have a right to say how things shall be handled; everybody that is worth their salt is going to exercise that right, and they are going to do it according to the kind of person they are – according to their temperament, their training, their self-control, their meanness, and their goodness. If we are going to put this thing through and prove that citizens can govern themselves, we must get from them what they can give, and we must let them give it in their own way.”
Source: The Life of Lincoln, Tachell
A True Democracy: The Right to misjudge and be misjudged, the Right to insult and be insulted, the Right to abuse and be abused, the Right to sneer and be sneered at, these Rights are the foundation stones of a true Democracy remove them and theocratic or secular tyranny of a single thought will be their replacement.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Leave a Loaded Gun (Islam) on the Kitchen Table What Happens?

Source:"Ottawa Gunman’s Radicalism Deepened as Life Crumbled", NYT By MICHAEL WINES and WILLIAM YARDLEYOCT. 24, 2014

"A portrait of the gunman shows he was an increasingly troubled, mentally unstable man who initially may have embraced religion not as a political cause, but as an attempt to scaffold a disintegrating life."

This is the usual multicultural ploy to deflect the real cause of terror to anything other than religion. Islamic religions construct of Other.

This is purposefully done to say only an 'insane' person would carry out such acts therefore those Muslims that do not are not a threat. The reason being such insane acts are generally seen by the public as generic statistical outliers rather than cultural derived acts for which the culture itself must be held responsible.

Clearly these actions where specifically political in nature and require justification, motivation from a political construct, a persons previous psychological experience to being imbued with such a political construct which enables such violence may provide some reason for the actions but clearly the trigger, justification and authorisation has to be Islam.

You leave a loaded weapon (Islamic genocide construct of Other) lying around in the Public Square for anyone to pick up and utilise, whatever the main psychological contributing factor may be, which enables justification and authorisation of such acts what do you expect to happen?

It is amazing there is a clearly connection between the availability of guns and gun related murder. As the access to guns increases in any society so does gun related crime.

Yet the same happens with Islam the greater the number of Islamic adherents in any society:

1. the greater the probability terror will exist within and be exported externally,

2. the greater the probability vast scare resources are having to be redirected for the privilege of having such a genocidal construct within the Public Square,

3. the greater the probability oppression of Other and women exists relative to the political influence Islamic adherents have acquired through force or via democratic means. As we have seen Democracy can just as easily inform tyranny as liberty.

Turkey: The "Great Muslim Democracy" by Burak Bekdil October 25, 2014 at 5:00 am

Remove the loaded gun (Islam) from the kitchen table stop the murder of innocents - otherwise nothing changes, and simply gets worse. This is good Public Policy?

Monday, October 20, 2014

Sowaibah Hanifie A Gross Parody in an Attempt to Redefine the Definition of Feminism and Oppression. - Proof Muslim Feminist is false by definition:

Source: "Hijab worn as 'proud symbol of feminism', Adelaide student says" 891 ABC ADELAIDE BRETT WILLIAMSON 18-10-2014

Sowaibah Hanifie proud of wearing a 'sickening symbol of female oppression and an adherence to a genocide construct of Other',

Those promoting such a state as a 'good' from Western Culture particularly women are doing their fellow gender a great disservice and should be ashamed for participating in promoting such a symbol of womens inequality and the superiority of Man.

To determine such as state 'freely chosen' ignores the socialization process involved for any person to accept such a state relative to another and those who have been subject to violence and even killed for not conforming, suffering under forced adherence and the responsibility for Mans sexual thoughts feelings and behavior which are inherent in the construct. Shame for your ignorant and callous act..

Feminism can only be ever realised as fact in Others ethical space which allows for such goals, hopes to be realised.

Wearing the hijab and claiming your a feminist is the same as a member of the Nazi Party wearing the Nazi brownshirt and proclaiming "Brownshirt worn as 'proud symbol of human rights', Berlin student says. To Other such statements are indeed sickening for the reality is completely the opposite.

Islam does not provide the space within which a feminist can exist, never has nor will until the Islamic/Muslim cultural codex construct of women is deleted and rewritten as a feminist construct. 

A goldfish launching itself out of a fishbowl full of water into the fresh air cannot claim for very long 'Look I am a bird watch me fly'. To be a bird you have to be a bird in the first place and live in an environment which enables a bird to exist and fly. You can transform, albeit it is nigh psychologically impossible, over time into a bird but it means accepting and adapting to completely new rules that are diametrically opposed to the state within which you previously existed.  Also it assumes there are no environmental barriers such as being attacked by fellow Goldfish for even having the temerity to aspire to such a fundamentally changed condition.

Feminist Construct: Doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Feminisms goal, hope is not equal but different, is not inferior, is not to be listed along with the horse and the home as chattels/owned.

This is the reality: The Hijab is a 'sickening symbol of female oppression and an adherence to a genocide construct of Other', 

Proof Muslim Feminist is false by definition:

"Islam appeals to all base instincts" Not all base instincts, Mans base instincts. Man created the Quran and the construct of women, women clearly played no part other than being subject of the Islamic constructs. Who consciously with relative freedom would determine themselves inferior to another human being unless forced to do so?

Psychology determines Cultural (Text-Cognition-Schema/belief/ethic-Behaviour)

Therefore anyone with a pencil and paper, going through and detailing the textual construct of women in the Quran would know when they pick up the feminist definition (unmulticulturalised) will see a Muslim feminist is a genetically cloned (Islamic codex) monster baring no resemblance at all other than the fact both are female clothed in diametrically opposed ethical constructs.

The tawdry attempt to put this Islamic 'feminist' monster into the Emperors cloths (have it accepted as a societal norm) can be found in of all things on a site proclaiming itself as Open Democracy - rather than advancing relative independence this site believes - all ethical monsters allowed.

"The Koran proclaims equality between the sexes but also clearly indicates male superiority. In the fight for women’s rights in Islamic societies, how do human rights activists and Muslim feminists reconcile this contradiction?"

Source: What do Muslim women want? Finding women’s rights in Islam,  OpenDemocracy - Free Thinking For The World XAVIERA MEDINA 1 October 2014

From current definitions clearly you cannot logically and rationally under Feminist model "reconcile this contradiction" for it would approve of inequality and superiority of Man.

What is the definition of Feminism?

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

Firstly, clearly from the first definition of feminism above requires women and men to be equal in a non-qualified manner otherwise ‘all’ is meaningless.

Secondly one can be a feminist if one is in an organised movement for such equality in ‘all’ things “social, political, and all other rights” but such and organisation has to exist in a cultural model whose foundation codex does not explicitly nor implicitly stop such a state from ever being realised. You can pretend to be a feminist within such a paradigm, under the basis you are trying to improve the female condition, but you can never be because you cultural model by definition does not allow you to realise ‘all’. You can never achieve the feminist goal of unqualified equality. 

You can claim to be seeking to improve Muslim women’s condition but never be able to claim you are a feminist for such a state under Islam can never be realised across the whole Islamic informed Muslim behavioural variance. You would have to reject the core codex of the Islamic cultural model you therefore cannot be an adherent of that Model and call yourself a feminist.

So feminism informs a goal, a hope of unqualified equality in ‘all’ rights relative to Man inclusive of power in all aspects of society which can only be realised via ideological models which enable the feminist goals to be reached. 

How by definition can you call yourself a feminist when as a women you have to accept whether you like it or not an Islamic cultural codex constraint which are ethically diametrically opposed to feminist ideas, and therefore precludes you from ever achieving the feminist state? It is the same as claiming you are a sailor and your boat has no sails, it never did, nor will it ever as even the mast does not exist. Change Architect and Builder or change nothing.

No one in a logical universe could reconcile this contradiction, you would have to redefine the word logic under an Islamic paradigm. The reason being by definition this "contradiction" can never be made true, be valid.

This is a tawdry attempt of merging of two diametrically opposed ethical constructs Muslim women and Feminist so that it is accepted without protest within a Western Democratic Public Square.

Here we have two premises which cannot exist logically by definition in the same argument for it to be true/valid: 

1: The Koran proclaims equality between the sexes.
The Quran in Sura 2:228 says: Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, the Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)

Clearly equality is qualified “degree above them (women) in status’. Words and phrases strung together in cultural codex are not simply there to achieve no effect, as with any qualification in a statistical analysis weighting in favour of one variable over another has ‘real’ life consequences.

The notion of such a statement unqualified by associated text applies also for the notion of Muslim text in the Quran ‘Muslims must not force Other to change religions’ if one sees the textual constructs before this, adjoining and after this statement it makes such a claim simply a form a rhetorical question, a nonsense ‘Of course Muslims cannot change Others beliefs.”

Muslims cannot in reality force Other to change their beliefs (although external behaviour and/or explicit statements may inform such a condition) as God Himself determines such a condition, and importantly it clearly does not mean if Other explicitly refuse to become a Muslim there are no detrimental consequence as we see even today as with history for refusing to become a Muslim.

2. The Koran proclaims male superiority over females.
The Quran in Sura 4:34 says: Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 329)
Sura 2:282: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind." (Bukhari, emphasis added)

So here we have above the notion of Muslim women’s equality circumscribed and superiority of Muslim Man to women (not just Muslim women). This does not appear to be an ideological model which enables a feminist to exist within, a human rights advocate to improve the condition of women within the framework of Islam yes, but a feminist no.

Proof Muslim Feminist is false by definition:

For argument sake we have to make a clear invalid assumption “equality”- equal rights, equal opportunities, actually exists for women under an Islamic paradigm. The following proof is simply to determine by definition if superiority is in essence an antonym of equality and in doing so prove combining Muslim and Feminist in the one phrase is untrue/invalid. You simply cannot be inferior and equal at the same time.

Synonyms: a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example (e.g. equality is a synonym of equal opportunities)
Antonym: a word opposite in meaning to another (e.g. equity is a antonym of inequity).

1: The Koran proclaims equality between the sexes.
Definition: equality
1.1. the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
Synonyms: fairness, justness, equability, impartiality, even-handedness, egalitarianism, equal rights, equal opportunities, non-discrimination; justice, freedom, emancipation
Emancipation: The fact or process of being set free from legal, social, or political restrictions; liberation:
- the social and political emancipation of women

Antonyms: inequality, inferior, not adequate or sufficient

1.2. MATHEMATICS a symbolic expression of the fact that two quantities are equal; an equation.

Conclusion: The opposite (antonym) of equality is inferiority.

2. The Koran proclaims male superiority over females.
Definition: superiority
2.1. the state of being superior.
"an attempt to establish superiority over others"
Synonyms: supremacy, advantage, lead, dominance, primacy, ascendancy, leadership, precedence, edge, whip hand, better quality; excellence, eminence, distinction, greatness

Antonyms: inferiority

Conclusion: The opposite (antonym) of superiority is inferiority.

Given the Definition: inferiority
the condition of being lower in status or quality than another or others.
"ideas of sexual difference condemned women to a position of inferiority"
synonyms: lowliness, inferior status, inequality, inferior position, secondary status, secondary position, subordination, subjection, servitude, lower in status, lesser, second-class, second-fiddle, minor, subservient, lowly, humble, menial, not very important, not so important, below someone, beneath someone, under someone's heel; lower-ranking, lower in rank, subordinate, junior, secondary, subsidiary, ancillary.

antonyms: superiority, equality

Conclusion: The opposite (antonym) of inferiority is equality.

Proof Muslim Feminist is false by definition:
Premise: The opposite (antonym) of equality is inferiority.
Premise: The opposite (antonym) of inferiority is equality.
Premise: The opposite (antonym) of superiority is inferiority.
Conclusion: The opposite (antonym) of equality is superiority 

Therefore you cannot have a state of equality (particularly if it is circumscribed) and a state of superiority over another entity (women) exist in the same space and therefore Islam does not provide the basis for a Muslim woman to determine herself a feminist under such an ideological model as you have to as an adherent of Islam accept circumscribed equality and the superiority of Man the exact opposite of the definition of a feminist as detailed above. 

Therefore a Muslim woman cannot be a feminist and never will until the Islamic codex constructs of women hard-coded within the Islamic codex are physically removed and the exemplar template model of Mohammed’s behaviour towards women are removed – only then is it possible – until then you can pretend as much as you like but it will never be true.

Multiculturalism is now telling us inferior is superior and they wonder why we are determined to set the record straight, well at the very least definitions.

I ask where are the Australian feminists or any feminist disputing this rewriting of feminist theory. Have you lost the ability and or the will to deconstruct? Fighting centuries to get rid of such constructs from within the Public Square and you are allowing one of the worst cultural oppressive constructs of women into the Public Square as a 'good' without a whimper? You really do not know what the hijab represents in reality? Bring back the sixties.

'Complete Proof' within the Islamic behavioral variance 'spectrum' women being 'free' to choose their own clothing style is a lie and why.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

The Psychology of looking the other way and the terrible cost of doing so.

The following argument is not about supporting Climate Change in one way or the other, as clearly this is not what this site is about. But is utilized as a guide to the psychological reasons why humans simply ignore the reality which confronts them and explains the frustration of those of us who see the catastrophe unfolding and have our well founded warnings ignored by people particularly the powers that be, our Gatekeepers. Gatekeepers in fact who turn on us for telling it as it is.

What has Climate Change and Islamic/Muslim Culture in common?

"Climate change, duh, of course it is happening. But it is bigger than we can make a difference on. We just want to go home, and we will deal with all that lofty stuff some other day." Said Dina Long charismatic Mayor of Sea Bright (US) after Hurricane Sandy tore through her town, gutted every shop two thirds of the residents homeless.

"Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as "Superstorm Sandy") was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Classified as the eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane and second major hurricane of the year. While it was a Category 2 storm off the coast of the North-eastern United States, the storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record (as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km))."

The quote from Dina Long came from a book "Don't even think about it. Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change" by George Marshall (2014). The title could really have been rewritten:

'Don't even think about it. Why our brains are wired to ignore Islamic/Muslim Culture'

It is well worth reading, even if you believe in climate change or not, for it explains the many facets of why there is such inaction regards the clear threat the Islamic/Muslim culture poses in reality in time and space and the fact humans would prefer to go down the plug hole dealing with symptoms of 'large' issues, "lofty stuff" than actually deal expeditiously with the cause their own destructive behaviour or others destructive behaviour such as the Muslim community informs.

Both symptoms of Climate Change and Islamic/Muslim culture happen over time in catastrophic events of varying intensity underpinned with an underlying surge of negative change within a trend relatively slow at first which allows the development, acceptance of cultural derived and enforced wishful thinking and future bias underwritten by cultural exemplars, leaders, experts 'deniers' such as Australia’s inappropriately determined top counter-terrorism expert Dr David Kilcullen.

“A trend relatively slow at first” but as we see in currently in Australia and elsewhere, inclusive of history the momentum gains pace and beliefs/ethics the Gatekeepers have allowed through the gates unimpeded start to cause terror and major schism. The killing has started in Australian streets with many attempts averted in the past. The very foundation of the existence of Western culture its ethics start to be welded into an abhorrent forms which by definition based upon Western derived values particularly regards women are the core reasons why the cultural war with Islam/Muslims is happening and will intensify.

“The Koran proclaims equality between the sexes but also clearly indicates male superiority. In the fight for women’s rights in Islamic societies, how do human rights activists and Muslim feminists reconcile this contradiction?” 

It means superior=inferior. It means ‘feminism’ a Western construct now includes as part of its definition Muslim (inferior) women as integral to its definition. It simply cannot be true in a space were Western notions of women now exist. How can Western culture be convinced to accept such an ethical construct which are so diametrically opposed to it ethical view?

My view and I believe would be the same as Lincolns only by surging force, – Islamic/Muslim terror and major schism, which the ‘deniers’ are determining does not exist. ‘Deniers’ claim these incidents are isolated ‘generic criminal’ behaviour unrelated to its cause Islam/Muslim behavioural variance yet at the same time in complete conflict with their stated position determine the symptoms Islamic/Muslim cultural derived terror/major schism as with Climate variance related events of a catastrophic nature are intensifying.

This is what Climate Change and Islamic/Muslim Culture have in common – “Look the problem is too big, we will make excuses and deal with the symptoms until it is too late, for leave it for future generations to do so.”

It is a strategy I for one intend to fight against until I am no longer able.

This has to be resolved by the current destructive ‘denier’ Gatekeepers being replaced by Gatekeepers who do not allow the hoards in (metaphorically and in reality) through our societal gates and importantly have Gatekeepers, be it regards climate change or any other matter, who accept humans are not simply on this planet to avoid making tough decisions because they are too hard, too big, too lofty and it is more ‘pragmatic’/convenient for those in the future our grandchildren and their children who follow to endure the terrible burden of our inaction or as we see daily ill-directed action.

Ill-directed action which Islam/Muslim culture adapt to, improvise, overcome. As ISIS morphed from a source and will morph to another and another, as will Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia just one political arm of this so called ‘only’ religious Islamic/Muslim culture, overcoming each judicial, military, security, controlling mechanism Australian society utilises to deal with symptoms not the cause the Islamic/Muslim cultures foundation codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) for political control as the Islamic/Muslim mayhem surges.

I highly recommend Dr David Kilcullen and his buddies have a ‘Counter-Insurgency’ Book Club discussion utilising this book "Don't even think about it. Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change" by George Marshall (2014) under the theme ‘Take Time To Challenge Your Perspective.’

Don't Even Think About It Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, By: George Marshall

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Petition to Speaker of the House of Representatives Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP.:For a Royal Commission to examine Australian Public Policy as they relate to the Islamic/Muslim community and ascertain why such policy is failing to deliver peace and security.

Petition to Speaker of the House of Representatives Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP.:For a Royal Commission to examine Australian Public Policy as they relate to the Islamic/Muslim community and ascertain why such policy is failing to deliver peace and security.

The Muslim terror and a related deaths as we have seen elsewhere in the world have started in Australian streets, clearly Australian policy has failed to protect Australian citizens and the terror situation is getting worse. Australians need to understand the reasons for this failure and for the worsening situation by reviewing specific assumptions underlying policy, as well as other factors contributing to inter-cultural schism in Australia, as it is happening overseas.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Those Other playing games in donning veils can walk away, for now they may

Those Other playing games in donning veils can walk away, for now they may, but what of the future for them and coming generations of women. What in reality are you supporting, propagating? Is it really ‘Freedom’ or is it in reality oppression?

Those Other should, before the glow of a job well done sinks in, reflect upon the following

1. Clothing are not apolitical. 

2. Clothing reflects relative cultural bounded autonomy and agency.
3. Clothing are symbols of adherence to and/or of being subject to a particular model of cultural belief/ethics which inform a behavioral variance of relative levels of autonomy and agency.
4. We are culturally conditioned to believe the nature of our existence within the culture we exist is a good despite the reality of such a condition. To simply have to accept a cultural relativist position “Well it does not matter.” when psychology and particularly social psychology as well as feminist theory reveals the inequity, limited opportunity, relative independence, and even psychological damage such cultural conditioning entails.

In Others culture the veil has none of the political consequences inherent in the Muslim culture. The linkages of responsibility for sexual harassment or worse, or of being subject to Mans direction, or of being linked to a cultural construct which clearly informs terror for Other. What are you in reality supporting ‘Freedom’? Think.

Think about the Muslim women who have no choice, who are forced even in Australia to align to these Muslim defined dress codes for women, forced not only by Muslim Men but Muslim women as well, whose voices you do not hear. You by your actions are supporting the very foundation of beliefs/ethics which will support the continuation of this oppression.

There were slaves in the US civil war who determined their condition satisfactory and wanted to remain under the Master. Lincoln should have done what on hearing such a convincing case? What existed for persons within the same cultural behavioral variance, is the condition of being subject and wearing the ornaments of such subjugation acceptable in the sight of Other?

Congratulations on protecting the Freedom of a culture to deny Freedom and call it a good.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Please sign the petition. Why? Do you value Western definitions of Liberty, Equality (particularly for women), Fraternity? Have Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, placed on the List of Terrorist Organisations and banned in Australia.

Petitioning The Hon Julie Bishop MP: To immediately have the political group by the name of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, placed on the List of Terrorist Organisations and banned in Australia.

Please sign the petition. Why? Do you value Western definitions of Liberty, Equality (particularly for women), Fraternity?

"Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology. It works within the Ummah and together with her, so that she adopts Islam as her cause and is led to restore the Khilafah and the ruling by what Allah (swt) revealed. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political group and not a priestly one. Nor is it an academic, educational or a charity group. The Islamic thought is the soul of its body, its core and the secret of its life.

1. The Reasons for the Establishment of Hizb ut-Tahrir

Hizb ut-Tahrir was established in response to the saying of Allah

"Let there be among you a group that invites to the good, orders what is right and forbids what is evil, and they are those who are successful"

Its purpose was to revive the Islamic Ummah from the severe decline that it had reached, and to liberate it from the thoughts, systems and laws of Kufr, as well as the domination and influence of the Kufr states. It also aims to restore the Islamic Khilafah State so that the ruling by what Allah revealed returns."


Islamic Ummah:
The word 'Ummah' refers to "the people" in Arabic, more specifically to Muslim people with a common ideology and culture. "Ummah" is also said in the Quran by Allah referring to Muslims. It is more commonly used in Islamic countries. Muslim Ummah absolutely refers to the unity of Muslims all over the world. It is a communal word which divides people into two classes: one of them is Muslim and the other is non Muslim.

Kafir Arabic kuffār is an Arabic provocative slur used in an Islamic doctrinal sense, usually translated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel." The term refers to a person who rejects God in Islam or who hides, denies, or covers the "Islamic version of truth." The practise of declaring another Muslim as a kafir is takfir. The term is considered offensive by non-Muslims.

Khilafah State
A caliphate Arabic: khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful, (the Ummah), ruled by a caliph under Islamic law (sharia)

What does this all mean:

1. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party whose ideology is Islam. The 
ideology is the Islamic codex (textual (Quran) and exemplar (messianic) templates(Mohammeds behavior)) reflected in Sharia law.

2. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party which if it gains enough political influence in time and space will get rid of Western philosophical "thoughts, systems and laws of Kufr (non-believers)" - your laws and replace them with Sharia law. Women under such a framework will be subject to Mans 'leadership'/'Ownership' and Other will have a very hard time surviving.

3. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party which if it gains enough political influence in time and space will impose a Khilafah State a Religious (theist) State ruled a supreme religious leader allowing only one ideology Islam via sharia law to determine the nature of an iindividualslife.

4. This ideological construct/system is so incompatible with the Western Notions of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it has to immediately be removed from the Public Square. For this type of ideology feeds the terror Australia and everywhere in the world has to face and has done so since the seventh century. The reason being such an oppressive construct can never be accepted by Other unless it is enforced by terror and violence.

5. Anyone who proposed that Islam is a religion and is definitely not a political force really needs to check into a psychologist immediately for delusion therapy particularly after reflecting on the Hizb ut-Tahrir internet site and you still believe Islamophobia is real.

Please sign the petition.


Reflect how such notions, so anti Western Democracy actually provide the motivation for terror given Muslims inherently know as detailed in the Quran we Other are not going to go quietly into the night and be subject without shackles to such a heinous societal construct/system of oppression particularly for women.

Not Islamic Religion/Not Muslim Culture is clearly a lie and a very dangerous one for the survival of Western Culture. Any systems analyst surely could point this out in two seconds.

"Ever since the Industrial Revolution, Western society has benefited from science, logic, and reductionism over intuition and holism. Psychologically and politically we would rather assume that the cause of the problem is “out there,” rather than ”in here.” It’s almost irresistible to blame something or someone else, to shift the responsibility away from ourselves, and to look for the control knob, the product, the pill, the technical fix that will make the problem go away.

Serious problems have been solved by focusing on external agents-preventing smallpox, increasing food production, moving large weights and many people over long distances. Because they are embedded in larger systems, however, some of our ‘solutions’ have created further problems. And some problems, those rooted in internal structure of complex systems, the real messes, have refused to go away.

.. No one deliberately creates those problems, no one wants them to persist, but they persist nonetheless. That is because they are intrinsically system problems-undesirable behaviours characteristic of the system structures that produce them. They will yield only as we reclaim our intuition, stop casting blame, see the system as the source (not the symptoms) of its own problems, and find the courage and wisdom to restructure it.”

Thinking in Systems, A Primer, by Donella H. Meadows, 2008

In other words the Muslim culture, a system that the Islamic religious ideology informs, is the source of terror as a whole system and the major schism which goes with the Muslim cultural system, not simply a single element of the Muslim culture the ‘radical’ which is just one derived ‘stock’ determined as completely separate from the Muslim cultural system itself - this in system terms is completely impossible.

Stock in system terms are the elements of the system, in this case of the Muslim culture, that you can see, feel, count, or measure at any given time. i.e. Abbott has said on numerous occasions 60 Australian citizens (stock) are currently fighting with ISIS and the relative level of fear (stock) Australian citizens feel having such a culture in their midst which delivers such flows of terror (stock) consistently constantly across the globe.

Not Islamic Religion/Not Muslim Culture as a stated view by some Australian politicians and counter-terrorist/insurgency so called experts is a lie. So clearly so as systems analysis would clearly show that the terror is being enabled by those who are driving Australian security policy based upon this lie and are responsible for the deaths and major schism which are inevitable by its acceptance if they do not change course. The killing in Australian streets has started.

Petitioning The Hon Julie Bishop MP: To immediately have the political group by the name of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, placed on the List of Terrorist Organisations and banned in Australia.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Australia 2014: Premier Campbell Newman = Britain 1937: Norman Hillson “ I speak of Germany” Both Dangerous twits.

Germany 1931: "Hans Achim Litten cross-examined Hitler 1931 in a court case involving two workers stabbed by four “a very small number - few” Brownshirts (paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party) –
“The presiding judge read a question formulated by Litten: Did Hitler, as he named Goebbels Reich Minister of Propaganda, know of the passage from his book, where Goebbels declares that fear of the coup d'état cannot be permitted, that parliament should be blown up and the government hunted to hell and where the call to revolution was made again, letter-spaced?
Hitler: I can no longer testify under oath, if I knew Goebbels' book at the time. The theme (...) is absolutely of no account to the Party, as the booklet doesn't bear the Party emblem and is also not officially sanctioned by the Party. (...)

Here we have in 1931 not just a leader but the leader Hitler of an ideology denying that Nazi text which aligns directly to his own Mein Kampf construct of Other informed the murder of two men by a ‘few’ Nazi adherents. Please note the exact same construct of Other exists in the Quran.

Have I sinned? What is a Genocide Construct of Other and Why is it formed?

" February 28, 1933, the night of the Reichstag fire, he (Litten) was rousted from his bed, arrested and taken into protective custody. Litten spent the rest of his life in one Nazi concentration camp or another, enduring torture and many interrogations. After five years and a move to Dachau, where his treatment worsened and he was cut off from all outside communication, he committed suicide."

We face exactly the same obscenity of denial in 2014 in Australia by Gatekeepers who are either inept or liars or both.

2014: Premier Campbell Newman: “There are some people a very small number ‘few’ of ‘radicals’ who are talking about doing their fellow Australians or Queenslanders harm.


…If people lash out against a particular group then we immediately start to break our community apart. Lets not allow this to happen. Let us recognise we are dealing with some criminals who are using a particular religion, Muslims as a badge trying to convince other people to get on board. They are rejected by the leaders of that religion and all freedom loving members, the majority of people of that religious group they reject these things unequivocally.”

This can justifiably be rephrased utilizing the exact same logic for Germany 1931.

Germany 1931: President of Germany Paul von Hindenburg: “There are some people a very small number ‘few’ of ‘radicals’ who are talking about doing their fellow Germans harm. …….
…If people lash out against a particular group then we immediately start to break our community apart. Lets not allow this to happen. Let us recognise we are dealing with some criminals who are using a particular ideology, Nazism as a badge trying to convince other people to get on board. They are rejected by the leaders of that ideology and all freedom loving members, the majority of people of that ideological group they reject these things unequivocally.”

Australians should be also reminded of the following, Premier Campbell Newman is not alone in his dangerous stupidity.

London 1937: "Experience has taught me that all argument is useless with fanatical young Nazi of this kind, and so I say nothing." Norman Hillson “I speak of Germany”,

Norman Hillson despite seeing the results of terror by the very small number - few on the German streets the exact same script, logic and pure ignorance of Premier Campbell Newman:

London 1937 “ the Germans (inclusive of the Nazi) . that great unified people are looking for peace and see friendship with Britain as a basis for peace not only for themselves but for everyone else”. Norman Hillson “ I speak of Germany”,

This is where the Australian Political mindset is now 'It could have been worse." Well get this do not change your security strategy it will be.

We (Australia 2014, Britain 1937) assure ourselves 'moderates' are in charge for did they not tell us they were such, things could be worse?

London 1937 “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”

Australia 2014: Premier Campbell Newman says people should visit mosques on open days as a "gesture of good faith" at a time of "great peril for our country".

Germany 1931: Premier Campbell Newman’s request is exactly the same as asking the Socialists in Germany 1931 to attend a Nazi Party Rally. This is totally insane and it’s called in Australia 2014 being good.

Culture uses artifacts, rituals and text to develop and reinforce a shared sense of identity among members. It is the filter through which we see and understand our current reality(Edgar, 1980). 
Psychology Burton,Western,Kowalski, 2012

Counter-terrorist forces are arresting these persons therefore they are not generic criminals they are Muslim cultural terrorists/insurgents deriving their belief and actions from Islamic artifacts, rituals and text as the Nazi cultural terrorists/insurgents derived their belief and actions from Nazi artifacts, rituals and text, to claim this is not the case is pathological.

Not all Nazi members joined the SS nor the Brownshirts they were the small numbered few but they represented the true nature of the text in Mein Kampf they were the 'True Believers'.

Yet the true insanity is these dangerous gatekeepers are accusing those who can actually see and show the direct connection between Islamic text and exemplar (messianic) behavior, just as well as these Muslim 'radicals' can, are accusing these people of suffering a mental illness Islamophobia, racism, bigotry (a non-existent condition because rational fear is not a phobia) for detailing the truth - 'radicals' are coming from so called 'good'-'moderate' families, groups, institutions. this would be impossible if there was not an ethical bridge which all recognised as valid within the Islamic codex otherwise there would be no major schism.

How do you go about it. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child...

Did it make any difference the 'majority' of such a codex are "looking for peace" in Germany 1930s/1940s and you expect with an exact same Muslim genocide construct with growing not diminishing terror as in Germany 1931 Australia will somehow be different. Picking up simply newspaper articles over the last twenty years no movement in the Muslim ethical mean which enabled terror in Australian streets?

Should it not be ALL not majority, of what use is a culture in the Public Square which causes massive diversion of resources just to protect ourselves from adherents formed from the exact same cultural codex of the whole Muslim cultures so called 'good'-'moderate'-'radical'.

Change the Architect and Builder or Change Nothing.

Surely there exists within the security apparatus persons and even muslims who recognise this as a truth, cultures inform behavioral variances, and this variance defines the relative threat of any culture to another not the ever present 'good' which will always exist relative to the radical. It is what the radical of a culture informs consistently constantly which is the true measure of risk/threat a culture poses. To solve the problem derived from any cultures radicals therefore demands a cultural solution not an individual solution - the individual is never the issue because they are a product of the culture itself. It is the same as determining Pavlovs dog is responsible for his behavior when the bell rings and punishing him for being so. You have really done what? Changed what? 

Muslim culture has formed these cultural terrorists/insurgents unless the Muslim "artifacts, rituals and text" are removed which causes this condition nothing will change. Being 'friends' with the enablers the Muslim Culture be it that they and their erstwhile supporters are in complete denial of their complicity is absurd.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Is it True to Determine Allowing a Particular Cultural Group to Immigrate to Your Country Poses a Security Threat is Wrong" - "..most of them are children of immigrants"

"Police have named the attacker as 18-year-old Abdul Numan Haider, an Australian citizen from Narre Warren in Melbourne's south-east. His family had come to Australia from Afghanistan.
The Al-Furqan Islamic Centre in Springvale hosts a religious instruction school, along with lectures and discussions about Islam.

Their leader was a Bosnian-Australian man called Sheikh Harun or Abu Talha who once extolled the virtues of jihad, or holy war."
Abdul Numan Haider once connected with Islamic group Al-Furqan  The World Today By Alison Caldwell SEPTEMBER 24, 2014

Most immigrants, and from certain cultures none (which in itself should inform a truth), are not directly involved in radical actions, in cultures this is not at all unusual, but clearly family, groups, institutions must provide the sustenance and culturalization infant-child-adolescent-adult to create 'radicals' from so called 'good'/'moderate' families, groups, institutions to provide the necessary ethical bridge to cross so easily from so called 'good'/'moderate' to violent 'radical'. How can any person within such a culture claim rationally to be 'good'/'moderate' when enabling such a cultural construct of Other to remain from generation to generation within the Public Square enabling such tragic results?

Clearly the so called 'good'/'moderate' must know very well what the ethical basis for the 'radical' component of their own cultural behavioral variance is - it happens often enough, and from generation to generation upon common interpretation and purpose so cannot be behavioral outliers.

So for anyone to claim a person is suffering from islamophobia (a non existent condition because rational fear is not a phobia) for stating immigrants from a certain culture pose security risks not only now but into the future and will with subsequent generations, given the evidence these cultures do inform such violent outcomes, is delusional and worse outright dangerous to fellow citizens for such an approach currently underlying public policy allows terror and major schism to intensify under a 'criminal' rather than cultural response.

It is public policy which deals with intensifying symptoms of a specific culture not the cause the culture itself. So what happens - Terror Threat Levels are raised as the threat of attacks increases and occur tag teaming with cultural pressure to accept ethics abhorrent to Other in the same space.

"The girl, Rahaf Yousef, is 13.

Speaking wistfully of her days at school, she declared herself throughout the day to be “indifferent” to the marriage she says will keep her from finishing her education. But no one seemed to be listening."
In Jordan, Ever Younger Syrian Brides NYT By RANA F. SWEIS SEPT. 13, 2014

"The report, written in conjunction with Anti-Slavery Australia, tells the story of 14-year-old Ms Elia, whose parents married her off in Australia to an older man. When she tried to continue with her education after the marriage her husband burnt her homework and forced her out of school."
Girls as young as ten being forced into marriage; 14 million child brides married every year JULY 14, 2014

"So appalling was the woman's life of abuse, which included claims that her father told her she could only leave her marriage “in a coffin”, that Judge Joseph Harman made an unprecedented public appeal in his judgment for authorities to act.

The story came to light after the Daily Telegraph reported the arrest of a man who had been living with a 12-year-old as his wife in Sydney.

The imam who married the pair, Riaz Tasawar, was yesterday arrested by police."
Shame of our child brides: Court hears how woman was raped and beaten as it’s revealed hundreds are forced into arranged and unregistered marriages across NSW

“I would say nearly every Afghan Hazara family in ­Melbourne is involved in this practice.” ­Sultana, who fled the Taliban two years ago with her family, added: “I only know about these girls because I am also a ­Hazara, and the other women tell me about them. They are kept prisoners, locked in their husbands’ homes and only allowed out if their mothers-in-law go with them, so they can never seek help.”
“My brother used me to get his friend an Australian visa,” says Badria. “But I didn’t know that at the time. I was so young I didn’t know what was happening to me. All I knew was that I didn’t want to get married yet.

“I wanted to make something of my life,” she says. “But in our culture you obey your father. I would not have thought of saying no to the marriage. On the day of the wedding, standing there marrying this guy, I felt helpless, trapped and scared. But I remember thinking, ‘If I say anything against this, I will shame the family’s name.’ ”

‘It is the young flesh they want’

Do the many victims, (inclusive of us who have to pay increasing amounts of protection money better spent funding education, infrastructure, etc) of invariably 'only the few' cultural enforcers really care about relative numbers of a culture directly involved when they see for themselves the intensifying threat and the burning buildings, broken bodies and lives as well as the inexorable movement to impose abhorant ethical constructs as the 'norm' particularly as they relate to women within the Public Square? The later being the whole point of why the tool of cultural violence appears in the cultural codex in the first place. Cultural ethics/beliefs unable to be imposed peacefully through reason and equity require what type of cultural tools?

I believe this policy approach that religions, cultures whose ethics are derived from a religious rather than secular construct do not inform terror and major schism is so insane and devoid of truth that of course the policy instruments deployed will fail and citizens will be killed, maimed and live in increasing fear. 

So many determining themselves to be 'good'/'moderates' claiming to be of a religion of peace yet the religion continually informs such terror and major schism wherever it is allowed to set foot, not only in one space but thousands across time, as well as oppressive political constructs - this is pure madness.

It is important that persons are not attacked as this simply falls into the same genocide construct but the codex which enables this to occur rightly needs to be challenged which forms the infant-child-adolescent-adult radical and removed from the Public Square.

". most of them are children of immigrants"
Portugal's Jihadists by Soeren Kern Gatestone Institute, International Policy Council, September 14, 2014 at 5:00 am

"In Dec 2011 Justice Betty King sentenced three of the men to 18 years in prison, saying that they should be ashamed for their ingratitude to Australia. She added that Fattal, Aweys and El Sayed were all unrepentant radical Muslims and would remain a threat to the public while they held extremist views. Fattal can be deported on his release from jail, but his co-conspirators are Australian citizens.

16,000 Somali immigrants live in Australia, and Australian authorities have been worried for some time about the close links some of their number maintain with Islamist and jihadi organizations and ideologies."
Holsworthy Barracks terror plot

Teen terror threat: ‘Dangerous sons’ of Muslim immigrants involved in Australia stabbing

"That is a cohort, so far, of 80,000 low-skilled Muslims with poor English predominantly from countries that have the most radical and extreme jihadist traditions in the world.

Of course, most Muslims in any country are not extremists. But after the latest terrorist atrocity in London, former British prime minister Tony Blair, while acknowledging that most Muslims were moderates, commented: "There is a problem with Islam - from the adherents of an ideology which is a strain within Islam. We have to put it on the table and be honest about it. Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid the strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies ... At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don't admit it."
Policy failure creating a monstrous problem THE AUSTRALIAN Greg Sheridan JUNE 08, 2013

"not about religion"?

"This is a wonderful multicultural society we have."  Queensland Premier Campbell Newman said it was not about religion but about people involved in criminal acts.
Logan mosque targeted with anti-Muslim pamphlets, sparking fears of violence..
ABC By Leonie Mellor SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 

"Tony Abbott raises Australia’s terror threat to high"
Tony Abbott raises Australia’s terror threat to high 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014

"..a wonderful multicultural society we have" - Had once not anymore.

"not about religion"? Terrorists/insurgents require to be defined as such need to have a political cause,, and ideological cause, religious or non-religious. 

Are the 'societies criminal police gang squads arresting these supposed generic criminals? No those involved in arresting and hunting down these terrorists/insurgent are counter-terrorism security units.

This means these persons of interest are political, ideological advocates and have to, have to derive the justification and authorisation from a specific cultural, political, ideological codex  otherwise they would not be able to exist.

These are Muslim terrorists/insurgents therefore the justification and authorisation for their actions comes from a cultural codex of which each of them has a common understanding of meaning and purpose,  as anyone who has taken the time to read the Quran and reflect on Mohammad as the Muslim exemplar model would realize immediately is the source - Islam.

Religion is therefore responsible for the terror/insurgency undertaken by Muslims  the fact most do not go out and participate is not unusual, in fact not everyone can or does turn up at the front in any cultural war how would the cultural combatants survive? 

Nor is it unusual for members of such a community to claim innocence blaming 'radicals' - but radicals would not exist if the belief system they based their actions did not exist and more importantly such claims of innocence and moderation on the part of some of the adherents never stops the terror/insurgency increasing in intensity.

Also it can be clearly proved these 'radicals' are derived from the very families, groups, and institutions claiming to be peace loving - this is simply not a sustainable argument - peace loving - if it was really the case there would be no violent radicals - such ideas, motivation which enable violence simply would not exist.

As these infant-child-adolescent-adult 'radicals' have learnt their ethical and behavioral constructs within and from a cultural codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) and as there are statistically many adherents, therefore they cannot be determined generic criminal outliers, not only holding 'radical' beliefs but also utilising these cultural imbued beliefs as motivation for violence there has to be a commonly held view of the whole of culture 'good'-'moderate'-'radical' of not only the existence of an ethical bridge to cross from 'good' to 'radical' but a common whole of culture knowledge of the justification and authorisation for doing so inherent within the cultural codex. 

We are told continually invariably for each terrorist "They came from a 'good' Muslim family that does not believe in violence." Those Muslims and others supporting them claiming such a state believe it to be a true representation, either the Wests actions caused their 'good' children to stray or Muslim 'Hate' clerics from the exact same culture Islam did so. From where I ask do the 'Hate' clerics obtain the ethical constructs to even get to the point of justifying violence against Other? Islam.

The Islamic State are therefore Muslim 'radicals' not 'Death Cultists' nor generic criminals.

The Islamic State is, and has to be, basing its beliefs and behavior upon Islamic "artefacts, rituals and text to develop and reinforce a shared sense of identity among members." To claim this is not the case and the Islamic State does not represent Islam the proposers of such a notion given the Islamic States name alone need to justify 'why not' as all of us depend on our cultural learning to frame and justify our actions to ourselves and more importantly with others we are relating to. The Islamic state would not exist otherwise.

"Culture uses artefacts, rituals and text to develop and reinforce a shared sense of identity among members. It is the filter through which we see and understand our current reality(Edgar, 1980)." Psychology Burton,Western,Kowalski, 2012 

Islam is a religion, religion is responsible, therefore Muslims as a culture are responsible as long as the codex construct of Other enabling such cultural violence remains within Islamic/Muslim codex.

How did supposedly 'rational' highly educated Western security policy makers and enforcers come to believe or acquiesce to "not religion" as a fundamental deductive starting point for terror/insurgency which will lead irrevocably in time and space to their own cultures destruction as Islam adapts to having symptoms attacked not cause? The Islamic State is only one result of this policy in action. Adapt, Improvise, Overcome. It is not a new theme.

Firstly the 'holocaust' by the Germans against the Jews, raised the spectre of the real risk of informing horror once one starts determining 'rightly' or 'wrongly' a culture is informing terror and/or major schism. 

Secondly the development of the International Diplomacy, Business advantage based upon cultural relativism, the 'turning of the blind eye', diametrically opposed ethical constructs no longer posed Blocks to diplomatic dialogue, business - peace and wealth was more important than ethical differences so long as you-individual, family, institutions were not themselves directly subject to them - National/cultural sovereignty became the accepted basis for relationships. 

Thirdly vanity, the West thought and still do its philosophical constructs of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, economic prosperity, political democratically based institutions and processes are so so superior at delivering what a human needs to survive and flourish that time will convince even the most hardened 'radical' of other cultures the error of their ways. Trouble is every other culture thinks the same thing regards their culture relative to others.

Fourthly the size of the problem, given the only way to resolve what Tony Blair calls the Islam Problem is to remove the very 'artefacts, rituals and text which develop and reinforce a shared sense of identity among Muslim members.' which Muslims determine as sacred God given direction as to belief and behavior. The reality of what had to be actually done was clearly too much for those in political power and given the acceptance of one to three above as excuses -dealing with symptoms not cause appeared to be a much safer option. Let the future generations suffer the consequences we now will simply try and keep our heads above water.

One to four excuses needed to be realised in a supporting 'truth'-'not religion'-'not Islam' this is what they hobbled together the doctrine upon which the whole response to Islamic religious cultural war sits, prove it false to enough policy keys in the Western security network, totally false as the doctrine is, the real work to stop terror and insurgency begins. Of course it had to be an excuse underwritten by 'experts' in the field of terrorism/insurgency so the powers that be could wash their hands of the inevitable bloody failure that was to follow.

"I use the term "takfiri terrorist" to describe those who use terrorism to further that ideology. The doctrine of takfiri disobeys the Qur'anic injunction against compulsion in religion (Surah al-Baqarah:256) and instead holds that Muslims whose beliefs differ from the takfiri's are infidels who must be killed. Takfirism is a heresy within Islam: it was outlawed in the 2005 Amman Message, an initiative of King Abdullah II of Jordan, which brought together more than 500 'ulema (Islamic scholars)  and Muslim political leaders from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League in an unprecedented consensus agreement, a "unanimous agreement by all Muslims everywhere as represented by their acknowledged most senior religious authorities and political leaders." The Accidental Guerrilla David Kilcullen Oxford Press 2009

This the 'distinct' Islamic ideology devoid of a genocide construct of Other was created by "unanimous agreement by all Muslims everywhere". unanimous? There would be no Islamic State.

Let us consider two statements"

Mohammed Quran: "There is no compulsion in Faith."

Goebbels (Nazi propaganda Minister) "The Jews are guilty! The Jews are guilty!" .. "We (Nazi) have nothing to contribute to it, it will come by itself, because it has to come." ...

What was is the reality - something does not add up.

Clearly Goebbels and Mohammed are clear their ideology will not cause the subject of their constructs of evil Other the 'guilty' to be subject to harm, pressure in these one statements. 

What is completely ignored is where both statements sit within both codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) of both ideologies what goes before and after. 

Mohammed Quran: "There is no compulsion in Faith." for instance when reviewing just the Qur'anic text which goes before is simply a recognition of the impossibility to impose faith at a human level as psychology and experience would clearly dictate and the fact in the very first lines of the Quran it stipulates God decides who believes or not who is led astray or not not mere Muslim humans - for a Muslim to attempt to force a person to believe is to assume you have the power of God, to determine who believes. 

Such a justification to form the basis of a distinct Islamic ideology collapses - and clearly the true meaning is not lost on the Muslim radicals - yet it still justifies an obscenity 'not religion'. An obscenity for it blames the victims not the perpetrator, generic criminality replaces the true culprit culture-Islam-Muslims as adherents of that culture which enable it 'good'-'moderate'-'radical' to frame the next generations behavior.

How do you go about it. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child...

"..these efforts focused on the far-right; anti-Semitism in Muslim communities was left unchecked, according to community activists and government officials.

"The protests got a lot of attention, but 'Jew' has been used as an insult by young Muslims in schoolyards, on sports grounds, for years," said Ahmad Mansour, an Israeli Arab who has led initiatives against prejudice and radicalization among Muslims in Germany since 2007. "There is a group of people that Germany's fight against anti-Semitism passed by."
Germany Sees Rising Anti-Semitism Among Muslims

Merkel to Address Weekend Rally, German Jews Worry About Lack of Plan

Another example of growing incidences of Cultural Gatekeeper paralyses enforced not of fear of more Muslim terror but enforcement from within of the false notion of islamophobia, racism (even though Muslims are not a race) and bigotry (even though being bigoted against a genocide construct you would think would be a good).

I ask again no movement in Muslim ethical mean to enable attacks upon Other?

"not about religion"?

"With only a few exceptions, moderate Muslim leaders have not spoken out publicly to condemn the Islamic State and those who want to leave Australia to fight with them."
Preparing for next wave of terror in the post-9/11 world THE AUSTRALIAN Cameron Stewart SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 

The problem is 'only a few exceptions', firstly altruist enforcers in any culture invariably are 'a few' also the 'few' Muslim leaders who do not condemn the Islamic State and "those (Muslims) who want to leave Australia to fight with them." exist as 'religious' Muslims leaders and recognized as such therefore their reasons for not 'condemning' must derive from Islamic cultural justification and authorisation.

"Wissam Haddad, head of the extremist al-Risalah Islamic Centre in Sydney, this week called on the government to let Australians go and fight in the Middle East.."

Clearly Wissam Haddad is one of those Muslim leaders not condemning IS he is the head, Imam, religious leader advocating the support of cultural terror he as a religious leader clearly determines as a legitimate religious derived position. Otherwise it would be impossible for him to do so there has to be a cultural basis for approving of such actions. The fact Wissam Haddad exists at all and has not been run out of town by the so called moderate Muslims is because there must be Islamic legitimacy attached to him and his ethics. Otherwise he simply would not exist with the title and the organisation he currently heads.

As important as the direct connection of Muslim Leaders such as Wissam Haddads approval connecting decisions for doing so directly to religious based constructs is the complete juxtaposition between condemning IS by so called 'moderate' religious Muslim clerics and demanding by the same 'moderate' Muslim leaders at the highest level of the hierarchy in Australia nothing be done to stop IS carrying out despicable acts against Other inclusive of Muslims who do not align to their Sunni sect view of the world. 

You condemn the acts then refuse to do anything about it and even blame Other for a derivative of your own cultural codex - this is not duplicity. 

The duplicity is sickening claiming it has nothing to do with you then trying to obviate any action to resolve the situation. No religious cultural connection this is impossible for such a stance has to be justified on religious cultural grounds.

The 'few' could not do what they do so well unless there was cultural backing sufficient enough to do so. The Myth of 'only a few exceptions' Muslim Opinion Polls: A "Tiny Minority of Extremists"?"Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has rejected comments from Australia's Grand Mufti that the Abbott government will be to blame for creating more Muslim radicals at home if it sends troops to the Middle East."
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison rejects comments from Australia’s Grand Mufti
Date smh Gareth Hutchens and Rory Callinan September 14, 2014

The Grand Mufti (Arabic: مفتي عام‎ muftī ʿām , "general expounder" or كبير المفتين kabīr al-muftīn , "the great of expounders") is the highest official of religious law in a Sunni or Ibadi Muslim country. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"The Australian National Imams Council and Professor Mohammed issued a statement on September 3 saying "one of the main causative factor [sic] for local radicalisation in the West has been the Western governments' military involvement in the Middle East".

They called on the Abbott government to "re-examine its decision" to provide weapons to Kurdish forces in Iraq to help in the fight against the Islamic State."

"An imam (Arabic: إمام‎ imām, plural: أئمة aʼimmah; Persian: امام‎) is an Islamic leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque and Muslim community by Sunni Muslims. In this context, Imams may lead Islamic worship services, serve as community leaders, and provide religious guidance."

Islamic State another, not the worst brutal manifestation of Islam as Boko Harem and other groups clearly inform the same behavior. It is just that the Islamic State is an embarrassment to Obama and put a lie to a US strategy of disengagement based upon a fallacious self-serving Muslim view supported by grossly inept Western policy makers, expressed so eloquently by the religious Muslim Australian Grand Mufti and his fellow religious Muslim Imams "one of the main causative factor [sic] for local radicalisation in the West has been the Western governments' military involvement in the Middle East".

The fact is Obama withdrew from Iraq in large part on the basis of this belief, US involvement in Iraq caused the Islamist genocide conflict in both directions Sunni against Shia and both against the US. It is a belief founded on a lie. Islam is a religion of peace.

It is a lie because the US was not in Iraq when IS started to take control of large swaths of territory committing atrocities as they went. This was a sectoral-religious war within Islam itself - a war it has been waging for centuries even before the US came into existence.

This newspaper article segment above is proof the IS terror and major schism are derived directly from religion if it was not so the religious leadership, the religious Muslim Australian Grand Mufti and his fellow religious Muslim Imams would not be involved at all, do we see the catholic clergy involved, the buddhist, the hindu, etc, the terror and major schism, we have been told has nothing to do with Muslims, simply generic crime, nothing to do with Muslim sectoral enmity and inherent hatred of Other even trying to prevent terror even amongst Muslims themselves.

Other gets blamed for trying to prevent the worst that human nature can inform. 

"He said the young men who reportedly verbally attacked a uniformed ADF officer in Sydney's CBD were "idiots" who needed to be "dealt with" by authorities.

An internal ADF memo, circulated just 48 hours before Australia's terrorist threat level was raised to high last week, had apparently detailed an incident in which a group of men threatened to blow the "head off" an ADF member in Sydney if he went to Iraq to fight the Islamic State. 

According to The Sunday Telegraph, the officer was approached by the group of men and told to "go to the Middle East so we can blow your f----ing head off you c--t."

I ask again no movement in Muslim ethical mean to enable attacks upon Other not only in this country but elsewhere?

"Worse, there is no shortage of Arabs and Muslims who are convinced that Islamic State is actually an invention of Americans and "Zionists" to destroy the Arab world and tarnish the image of Islam.

The head of Egypt's Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam's highest seat of learning, was recently quoted as saying that Islamic State terrorists were "colonial creations" serving a "Zionist" scheme to "destroy the Arab world."
Why Many Arabs and Muslims Do Not Trust Obama by Khaled Abu Toameh Gladstone Institute September 15, 2014 at 5:00 am

Saudi Arabia's top clerics speak out against militancy Reuters RIYADH Wed Sep 17, 2014

"On April 23, Saad al-Durihim, a Saudi Wahhabi sheikh, posted a tweet on Twitter in which he said that jihadist fighters in Iraq should adopt a "heavy-handed" approach and kill any Shiites they can get their hands own, including children and women.
There is no sect or group that maintains a monopoly on extremism and takfir, all sects are apostatizing others. Even members of the same sect or political group are now apostatizing members of their own group because of political disputes or a struggle for power and leadership."
Saudi Wahhabi Sheikh (D. Saad Darém Faculty member (Associate Professor). Imam of a mosque) Calls on Iraq's Jihadists to Kill Shiites On April 23 2013 Almonitor

Clearly there is Islamic text which exists which supports terror 'apostatizing others' unless it is deleted not simply determined as misinterpreted or simply ignored with selective interpretation of other text the terror will not stop.

"Saudi Arabia's top cleric, Sheik Abdulaziz bin Al Sheikh, on Thursday issued the strongest condemnation yet of Hezbollah's role in Syria, urging politicians and Muslim scholars to take "effective steps to deter its aggression" on Syria."
After Hezbollah's foray into Syria's civil war, sectarian flames blaze stronger in Mideast

Published June 07, 2013 Associated Press

John Stuart Mill & Edmund Burke Putting the Cart Before the Horse. Are the 'Good' Responsible for Stopping Evil Or Are the 'Good'-'Moderate'-'Radical' Responsible for Creating Evil?