Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Dr Adrian Cherney & Associate Professor Tina Murphy: Humanity are not dealing with generic criminal acts we are dealing with Muslim cultural derived acts.

 Dr Adrian Cherney                 Associate Professor Tina Murphy
‘Fair go for Muslims’ key to police co-operation THE AUSTRALIAN, Bernard Lane, SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 12:00 AM

Dr Adrian Cherney & Associate Professor Tina Murphy: Humanity are not dealing with generic criminal acts we are dealing with cultural derived acts. Dealing with the cultural derived symptoms radicals, terrorists, etc will therefore never stop, in time and space, radicals, terrorists appearing within the Public Square-Unless you amend or delete the Islamic "artefacts, rituals and text" which consistently constantly inform Muslim radical, terrorist infant-child-adolescent-adult creation.

"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

“The way you win hearts and minds is through using procedural justice — respect, dignity, giving people a voice, being unbiased in decision-making, and also communicating that you have their best interests at heart,” Dr ­Murphy (Associate Professor Tina Murphy - Griffith University) said.

Dr ­Murphy what about the victims of the Muslim 'hearts and minds' which are the cultural source and sustenance of the very terror being perpetrated against Other? Where are the Muslim cultural victims "justice - respect, dignity,.. voice"?

The fact is Islam/Muslims as a cultural whole informs consistent constant terror, all you are doing Dr Murphy is putting the jackboot of 'Freedom of Religion' and Multiculturalism upon the throat of Other whilst violence grows against them from the very culture you are defending.

Muslims codex from which 'Good'-'Moderate'-'Radical' Muslims gain their ethics informs terror as an integral part of the Muslim behavioral variance. Muslims are therefore all responsible not Mickey Mouse adherents.

These actions of Muslims are not criminal outliers they are statistically Cultural norms based upon identifiable Islamic "artefacts, rituals and text" constructs of Other. How many more burning buildings broken bodies and lives do you need as evidence?

Humanity are not dealing with generic criminal acts we are dealing with cultural derived acts.

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?

If these identifiable Islamic "artefacts, rituals and text" constructs of Other did not exist there would be no Muslim terror. So the problems are not derived from Others efforts to contain and restrict Muslims activity it derives directly from Muslims codex, it changes or nothing changes.

"unbiased in decision-making" Please such a statement given every societal law which has ever been created are reflective of a cultural bias determines such a statement based upon wishful thinking. 

“In Myanmar at the moment there’s extremists targeting Muslims in the name of Buddhism, but you’ll never hear about that.”  Sydney student Nirvana Zibarrah

The utilisation of anothers cultures terror against Other to excuse the responsibility for your own which are clearly culturally derived and not generic criminal behaviour is a well worn path of infamy. It seeks to overlook your own cultures inherent construct of Other which is the root cause of the violent reaction. Also it sets a notion cultural derived terror is commonplace and therefore symptoms have to be addressed rather than cause - otherwise it is Islamophobia, racism and bigotry.

Islam/Muslims as a culture are responsible for cultural derived outcomes which consistently constantly in time and space inform terror and major societal schism. Blaming Other for Muslims behavioral variance is simply not going to solve the problem nor is trying to reason with members of a cultural genocidal construct in denial their culture is responsible not Other as can clearly be seen to be determined by Islamic/Muslim "artefacts, rituals and text".


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...

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

The Supposed Cause(s) of/Excuse(s) for Islamic Terror:

“Instead, he blamed traitorous officials for collaborating with ­Islamic State as they marched on Iraq’s northern province of ­Nin­eveh.” Iraq’s ambassador to Australia, Mouayed Saleh
Support for Tony Abbott’s terror crackdown THE AUSTRALIAN, Phillip Hudson, Paul Maley AUGUST 26, 2014 12:00 AM

“Mr Abbott said the best defence against radicalisation was "well informed and well equipped" families and communities.”
Tony Abbott has warned that 160 Australians are fighting for or supporting the Islamic State as he announces a $64m counter-terrorism package. Source AAP 26 AUG 2014 - 9:35 AM

“The typical Australian ''global jihadist'' is young, unmarried, socially marginalised and economically disadvantaged, said the University of Western Sydney's Dr Jan Ali, who is researching the radicalisation of Muslim youth.”
Emotions run high for Australia's Muslim youth risking all to fight in the Syrian war SMH Rachel Olding  December 7, 2013

“Silma Ihram from the Australian Muslim Womens ­Association said “absent ­fathers” together with anger among young men over negative comments being made about their country and faith had led some to become involved with more radical members of the community.”
Disengaged parents blamed for ‘angry young Muslim men’ becoming extremists LINDA SILMALIS THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH AUGUST 17, 2014 12:00AM

“If we are to prevent divisions growing among Australians, and most Muslims in this country are now Australian-born, talk is the first step. If we can work together to prevent radicalisation of young Australian Muslims that is in everybody’s interests.”
DARYL McLURE: Talking is the first step to prevent a Muslim divide DARYL MCLURE GEELONG ADVERTISER AUGUST 25, 2014 12:34PM

The supposed cause(s) of/excuse(s) for Islamic terror:
“traitorous officials”?
"ill-informed and un-equipped" families and communities?
“socially marginalized”?
“economically disadvantaged”?
“absent ­fathers”?
“negative comments” regards belief?
“limited inter-cultural talk (dialogue)”?

The question is given these same events do happen to Other cultures why do these cultures not manifest the same propensity for violence and major schism within the societies they reside as Islam/Muslims?

Could it be the reason for the propensity for Muslims participating in violence against Other and informing major schism are derived from some other cause than those described above and utilising any or all of them as 'cause' to justify policy decisions is an exercise in futility?

As for the last reason “limited inter-cultural talk (dialogue)” it requires both cultures having sufficient concurrence across their differing ‘rational’ cultural models, particularly regards the construct of Other via their respective "artefacts, rituals and text" to enable resolution, inter-cultural peace and harmony. 

Clearly Islam’s construct of Other the actual cause of Muslim violence enables, as it has from the seventh century, only ever a lull in proceedings. So ‘talk’ is worthless unless the reason why you are talking in the first place are removed, a cultures "artefacts, rituals and text" construct of Other. 

Monday, August 25, 2014

ASIO (Australian Security) boss (David Irvine) says government is fighting terrorism, not Islam = MI6 (British Security) boss (Colonel Stewart Menzies) says government is fighting terrorism, not Nazism

Islamic ethical construct of Other = Nazi ethical construct of Other = Different Outcome?

How is this possible? It is not.

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

"Mr Irvine also urged more Muslims to join ASIO." ASIO boss says government is fighting terrorism, not Islam,   SMH David Wroe August 21
The Director-General of Security leads ASIO and is jointly responsible for pursuing an intercultural Strategy which as history shows leads to cultural destruction of the in situ Culture

Anti-terrorism laws do not target Muslims, says ASIO head By Tahmina Ansari Updated Fri at 12:53pm

So ASIO boss David Irvine who are the "Anti-terrorism laws ... targeting" - Mickey Mouse adherents?

Where do the ethics of a culture come from which enables the ASIO head to come to such a conclusion - only the 'few' derived from a whole culture are to blame, every other adherent are blameless - had no linkage whatsoever with the 'few', in no way enabled the 'few', provide no networked influence/input whatsoever into the 'Muslim' cultural ethics which formed the 'few', the 'few' in any culture are in no way linked to the rest its is the 'fews' sin only - not the culture which formed them and set them on the path - a path followed by every generation of the 'few' from the seventh century onwards?

The absurdity of such a statement is that the ASIO head is actually seeking the assistance of the Muslim culture as a whole to assist in the fight against terror emanating from the exact same culture, where the terrorists can and do come from self-proclaimed 'peace-loving' networks, family, leadership, education institutions.

Also why should Other even put up with just one death resulting from allowing such a culture within the public square? How many is the limit? What is the limit on precious resources having to be redirected simply to protect ourselves from another culture within the Public Square?


"On Monday, the Pentagon announced an agreement that would allow the United States to share some intelligence, including aerial imagery, with Nigerian officials, but not raw intelligence data. American officials are wary of sharing too much because they believe that Boko Haram has infiltrated the Nigerian security services."

You really believe Muslims who have the exact same genocidal construct of Other as the Nazi and given this is clearly the case will not compromise, have not already compromised the Australian intelligence service?

The nature of a cultural behavioral variance given the existence of enough substitute Other ethical blockers can and does give the illusion of common purpose in a specific time and space but as political power grows to enable the full power of the Islamic framework feedback mechanisms to be applied to Muslims inclusive of the ones employed by ASIO which clearly include violence as an integral method - what happens - what is developing?

"Refugee advocate Jamal Daoud, who says he has been the target of a sectarian violence by hardline Sunni Muslims. .....

“I’m really scared now. It reminds me of what was happening before in Iraq. We thought we came to a democratic safe country,” he says, “but we are very scared now.”

Syria’s Civil War Spills Over in Sydney By Debra Jopson The Global Mail October 30, 2012


"Listen to me, I'm going to crack your neck if you come anywhere near my family," the young man told the officer in the recorded call.

"I don't give a shit, I'm willing to die ... Come near my family again and I'm going to slit your throat, you pig. ....


"The tone was chilling and clearly intended to instil fear," he (Judge McClintock) said."

Sydney man jailed for threatening to slit ASIO officer's throat Paul Bibby August 22, 2014


Actual cultural terror and the threat thereof internal and external to culture are for what purpose? There has to be one otherwise there would be absolutely no cultural utilitarian value in firstly setting up the cultural codex to justify, authorise and participate in such actions. It is for control of the Public Square to enable unimpeded access to resources (even sex) and political power to enforce its view of the world.

It requires control of the societal educational space:
Ever heard of a cultural strategic inflection point - this is one. The following is a facet of how a culture destroys itself. It is not a new story in fact it is often repeated.

Cultural violence or threat thereof is the enabling force to achieve the Tranquility of Silence of adherent and non-adherent alike. This 'violence' can be in the form of criminal action or developed public/private censure - cultural altruistic enforcement. But cultural altruistic enforcement has to be justified and authorised by the cultural codex adhered to by the majority as well as the 'few' for cultural altruistic enforcement to achieve its cultural purpose.

"• Parents do not have the confidence to argue against the articulate and forceful activists who seek to impose their views, for fear of being branded as disloyal to their faith or their community."
Schools face new curbs on extremism after Birmingham Trojan horse affair 
Patrick Wintour, Political editor The Guardian, Wednesday 23 July 2014 06.42 AEST

The 'few' determine their response by what mechanism. justification and authorisation - from their own derived ethical construct? There is no external connection at all?

"Scathing report prompts call for rethink of schools oversight as MP threatens to name council officials who took no action

A group of fundamentalist "activists", mostly men of Pakistani origin, infiltrated the management of at least 10 schools in Birmingham, sometimes breaking the law in order to introduce Muslim worship and sex segregation, according to a highly critical report.

Their activities were unimpeded by council officials who were fearful of allegations of Islamophobia, who forced ousted teachers to sign gagging clauses rather than treating their complaints seriously as whistleblowers, Ian Kershaw, the authority's independent adviser, concluded.

Sir Albert Bore, leader of the city's Labour-run council, apologised on Friday to the people of Birmingham "for the way the actions of a few, including some within the council, have undermined the great reputation of our city".
Fears of Islamophobia gave activists free rein in Birmingham schools Helen Pidd, Patrick Wintour and Lyndsay Warner The Guardian, Saturday 19 July 2014 05.45 AEST

The 'few' determine their response by what mechanism, justification and authorisation - from their own derived ethical construct? There is no external connection at all?

"Report reveals gang rape and trafficking of 1400 children over 16 years. ...Sometimes they were afraid of being accused of racism if they talked about the perpetrators mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers." 
"Local government knew of sexual abuse in Yorkshire town in 2005"  The Irish Times, Wed, Aug 27, 2014, 

The 'few' determine their response by what mechanism. justification and authorisation - from their own derived ethical construct? There is no external connection at all?

"More than 1,400 children were sexually abused over a 16 year period by gangs of paedophiles after police and council bosses turned a blind eye for fear of being labelled racist, a damning report has concluded.

It appears there was at a senior level a collective blindness over many years to the suffering of children who endured almost incomprehensible levels of violence and intimidation."
Rotherham sex abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited by Asian gangs while authorities turned a blind eye By Martin Evans, Crime Correspondent The Telegraph 8:51PM BST 26 Aug 2014

The debilitating fear the 'few' Gate Keepers experienced came from where? Not from the imposition of 'Freedom of Religion and Multiculturalism as a good which frames a non-existent mental illness Islamophobia? And determines anyone raising objections to another cultural norms as bigots, racists? These Gate Keepers have to have been subject directly to or observed action of altruistic punishment based upon their own cultural codex directional response. Unless this cultural codex is identified, changed or deleted this will happen again and I would proffer is occurring even now for exactly the same reason.


There is no pattern of cultural enforced 'fear' emerging which is preventing action against cultural derived evil? 

"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers (cultural altruistic enforcers)  not to do so"
U.K. town turned blind eye to sex abuse of more than 1,400 children over 16 years, damning report finds  Martin Evans, The Telegraph | August 27, 2014

The framework of Freedom of Religion and Multiculturalism has created these failures by implementing laws and norms which silence questions/accusations about the nature/ethics of any culture or the adherents of those cultures by setting a very dangerous norm that any action which is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" is a crime. What has this enabled where 'reasonably likely' is so open to interpretation that one simply says nothing. Here is the proof above.

True Democracy: The Right to misjudge and be misjudged, the Right to insult and be insulted, the Right to abuse and be abused....

Invariably
 It only ever involves the "the actions of a few," so absolutely no solace should be taken from this fact by Mr Irvine - not everyone from a culture turns up at the cultural front lines to become its cultural altruistic enforcers nor does it take, as we see above and throughout history, more than "the actions of a few," of inept, corrupt Gate Keepers of the Other culture to open the gates to infamy and destruction of their very own culture   - utilising this fact to excuse the culture as a whole is absurd - this is what always happens. It would be the same as excusing Nazi members who were not members of the SS for what the Nazi as a culture informs as a whole.

Why is such cultural codex enabling violence and major schism necessary? It is necessary to the degree the cultural codex itself cannot be rationally validated within the model itself and against external Other codex models. 

For instance the inequality of power between male and female requires violence and threat thereof to maintain on its own let alone the notion the validity of the codex is unchallengeable because a God has determined Other deaf, dumb and blind and subject to Islam/Muslims. The less able a cultural codex can be supported by real world experience the greater the propensity for violence internal and external required to enforce acceptance of its codex.

Just one child's life worth allowing such a cultural ethical construct within the Public Square? Yours?

Its culture stupid.

You are going to have to have shadows of shadows of shadows - you will need many more new buildings.

I am desperately hoping there are cultural realists within the intelligence services who realise this is leading to disaster and in fact know we have already arrived.

"Evil happens and prospers when the 'good'-'moderate'-radical' people within a cultural behavioral variance, of exactly the same cultural codex utilise culturally developed counter-argument, clearly contained within their codex, to blame either Other or symptoms of their own codex, 'radicals', and due to culturally developed bias cannot, will not see it is their core "artefacts, rituals and text" which are always the 'root', the 'origin' cause, and delete it or amend it.

"Evil happens and prospers" when ‘good’ people do nothing." is therefore simply not true, its the 'good' people who are as much a part the problem as the 'radicals' the 'good' continually reproduce from their cultural ranks. Until humanity understands this and moves with prejudice to address the ‘truth’ specific cultural ‘good’-‘moderate’-‘radical’ people inform and sustain cultural ‘Evil’ – cause ‘Evil’ to happen and prosper we will continue to deal with the symptoms of cultural Evil and not its cause the cultural codex hard coded constructs of Other requiring to be changed or deleted with force if necessary to remove them from the Public Square.



The supposed cause(s) of/excuse(s) for Islamic terror:

“Instead, he blamed traitorous officials for collaborating with ­Islamic State as they marched on Iraq’s northern province of ­Nin­eveh.” Iraq’s ambassador to Australia, Mouayed Saleh
Support for Tony Abbott’s terror crackdown THE AUSTRALIAN, Phillip Hudson, Paul Maley AUGUST 26, 2014 12:00 AM

“Mr Abbott said the best defence against radicalisation was "well informed and well equipped" families and communities.”
Tony Abbott has warned that 160 Australians are fighting for or supporting the Islamic State as he announces a $64m counter-terrorism package. Source AAP 26 AUG 2014 - 9:35 AM

“The typical Australian ''global jihadist'' is young, unmarried, socially marginalised and economically disadvantaged, said the University of Western Sydney's Dr Jan Ali, who is researching the radicalisation of Muslim youth.”
Emotions run high for Australia's Muslim youth risking all to fight in the Syrian war SMH Rachel Olding  December 7, 2013

“Silma Ihram from the Australian Muslim Womens ­Association said “absent ­fathers” together with anger among young men over negative comments being made about their country and faith had led some to become involved with more radical members of the community.”
Disengaged parents blamed for ‘angry young Muslim men’ becoming extremists LINDA SILMALIS THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH AUGUST 17, 2014 12:00AM

“If we are to prevent divisions growing among Australians, and most Muslims in this country are now Australian-born, talk is the first step. If we can work together to prevent radicalisation of young Australian Muslims that is in everybody’s interests.”
DARYL McLURE: Talking is the first step to prevent a Muslim divide DARYL MCLURE GEELONG ADVERTISER AUGUST 25, 2014 12:34PM

The supposed cause(s) of/excuse(s) for Islamic terror:
“traitorous officials”?
"ill-informed and un-equipped" families and communities?
“socially marginalized”?
“economically disadvantaged”?
“absent ­fathers”?
“negative comments” regards belief?
“limited inter-cultural talk (dialogue)”?

The question is given these same events do happen to Other cultures why do these cultures not manifest the same propensity for violence and major schism within the societies they reside as Islam/Muslims?

Could it be the reason for the propensity for Muslims participating in violence against Other and informing major schism are derived from some other cause than those described above and utilising any or all of them as 'cause' to justify policy decisions is an exercise in futility?

As for the last reason “limited inter-cultural talk (dialogue)” it requires both cultures having sufficient concurrence across their differing ‘rational’ cultural models, particularly regards the construct of Other via their respective "artefacts, rituals and text" to enable resolution, inter-cultural peace and harmony. 

Clearly Islam’s construct of Other the actual cause of Muslim violence enables, as it has from the seventh century, only ever a lull in proceedings. So ‘talk’ is worthless unless the reason why you are talking in the first place are removed, a cultures "artefacts, rituals and text" construct of Other. 

UK police ask families to identify 'aspiring terrorists'  By Gordon Rayner 7:37 AM Wednesday Aug 27, 2014

Given the Muslim families are integral to linking the ethics of Islamic culture as well as the cultural Islamic pond within which an individual Muslim adherent swim at what ethical point can any Muslim derived from what Muslims believe is a 'rational' Islamic model determine who is radical, when the radical ethics are exactly the same as the 'good' Muslim exemplar templates inclusive of the violent methods these exemplars utilise to enforce internal and external acceptance of their ideology?

There is a false assumption underlying the "UK police ask families to identify 'aspiring terrorists'" it is that Muslims will know what a Muslim radical is, based upon a Western philosophical 'rational' model of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity when Muslims do not utilise such a ideological model to make decisions as to the relative ethical standing of Muslim adherents. In fact the core Islamic codex determines the Western philosophical 'rational' model of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as an anathema. It goes completely against the core Islamic codex construct of Other and woman's place within Islam.

Where cultures are within the same Public Square there may be as there invariably always are within cultural behavioral variances those determining themselves as of a certain culture utilising Others ethics they determine as better that their own i.e. equality of women, violence against Other is not right, but mistaking these a representative of the whole culture and providing policy makers with some sense of hope enough 'good' and 'moderates' exist within the culture to be able to subvert the very nature and methods inherent in the culture is simply madness.

Madness because it is a very dangerous assumption to make because as the Cultural enforcement mechanisms are invariably brought into play such patchwork adherents have no Cultural codex justification nor authorisation for holding such views and they either 'Join the Team' or the suffer the consequences of being defined as Other.

If this was the case the existence of patchwork adherents at the fringe of cultural behavioral variances meant resolving intercultural conflict is easy, policy makers would have succeeded by now to stop any terror and major schism emanating from such cultures - have they? Are they? No.

Therefore such a request of any culture, by another culture based upon the requesting cultures clear understanding of what a 'radical' looks like (and even this is variable), that the offending culture (from Others point of view) betray their own or even are in a position to even identify 'radicals' when invariably their ethics are aligned to recognised exemplars of the exact same culture will fail. It will fail because the so called 'radicals' from the culture simply point out a cultural undeniable truth - they are the 'True' believers only doing what their Islamic cultural codex justifies and authorises.

A culture has to change their cultural codex which justifies and authorises such cultural acts or is forced by Other to do so - Otherwise the 'radical' only from Others perspective remains to develop in time and space. Marginal success via patchwork adherents with such a tactic will not stop the culture as a whole moving inexorably over the body of Other. The culture based upon the justification and authority of its codex will turn immediately and determine patchwork adherents the enemy - Other.

'Radical' (only from Others perspective) altruistic cultural enforcement immediately comes into play where once perceived patchwork fringes become aligned to core cultural codex.

"It came as Muslim leaders in Sydney signed a statement rejecting the proposed counterterrorism laws, labelling them as an "unjust and hypocritical policy".

The signatories included more than 50 Muslim organisations and individuals, including political groups, senior Imams, student and community organisations.

On Wednesday, a meeting with Federal Attorney-General George Brandis and senior members of the Muslim community was postponed."


This can be seen as a contrast between two diametrically opposed views of resolving inter-cultural conflict. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's 'Join the Team' and SBS (Australia multicultural media broadcaster) 'Join In'.

Abbott’s strategy is to demand the in situ cultural ideology in this case Western Philosophical codex Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as the cultural codex for citizens to adhere to. Based upon the notion you come to our home you abide by our ethics. Trouble is Australian ethical and informed legal constructs include the acceptance of ‘Freedom of Religion’ and Multiculturalism both determining such a stance as Abbotts doomed to failure as both inform many different ‘Teams’ which can and will exist in the same space.

‘Freedom of Religion’ and Multiculturalism can just as easily inform harmony or terror and major schism to develop as it clearly is wherever Islam is allowed within the Public Square, it really depends solely on how each different culture has concurrence across ethical constructs particular regards women’s status and the construct of Other.

Myths grow around the commonality of cultures ethical statements ‘Golden rule’ – “Do unto Others as you would have done unto thyself” as being proof cultures will with ‘talk’ get along – trouble is it is a myth because ‘neighbor’ and ‘others’ are invariably severely circumscribed within a cultures codex. For instance given the ‘Golden Rule’ is invariably found in a cultures codex there should be no intercultural conflict yet there is – and for very good reason.

The Golden Rule of Cultures = Fools Gold for Other. Utilizing the existence of the Golden Rule in all cultures codex as proof all cultures can live in peace ignores the fact invariably it is culturally qualified.

Abbotts view, and not unreasonable, is common accepted ethics enable avoidance of intercultural conflict arising from the development of ‘radical’ elements from ideologies which determine via their codex the adherents of the in situ culture as Other – out of Team – and therefore liable to ‘grievous harm’ or ‘severest penalty’. 

It has been found to be a ‘truth’ common ethics lead to societal harmony. Trouble is you are asking members of another ‘Team’ to change sides, to change their core ethical constructs (psychologically it appears it is very difficult for an individual, if not almost impossible thing to do for a whole culture - or enough in any case to make any difference)  – become Other –this as we see can have every severe penalties attached for doing so even if possible.

Importantly Abbotts strategy is a recognition by Abbott and his policy advisers Islam/Muslims as a whole culture are responsible for the terror and major schism emanating via so called ‘radicals’ formed by the ‘rational’ Islamic model and the culture from which such behavior are emanating should do something about it.

It completely moves away from determining such ‘radical’ derived acts as outlier criminal activity not aligned to any culture in particular. It determines a culture is responsible. ASIO’s David Irwin and Abbott loudly claim this is not the case, that there is no war with Islam inherent in the terror legislation ignoring the fact Muslims as a whole culture were the only cultural segment of the Australian citizenry to be singled out for meetings. This has not been lost upon anyone with two neurons in their head.

Australian Muslim leadership in chaos: Radicals reject Australia, boycott Tony Abbott GEOFF CHAMBERS AND DANIEL MEERS THE DAILY TELEGRAPH  AUGUST 20, 2014 12:14 PM

The notion a ‘distinct’ Islamic radical ideology exists is dumped, the whole Islamic culture is now responsible which in reality it is – but as individuals as with cultures telling us ‘truths’ about ourselves which are quite nasty immediately evokes self-serving counter-argument, in the case of cultures deniability scripted straight from the Islamic codex, utilized by every Muslim generation from the seventh century to this very hour.

Such a strategy of Abbotts will not work not because the responsibility is not being sheeted home to the actual culprit Muslims as a whole culture but it is a strategy which still concentrates on symptoms ‘radicals’ being identified after the fact but 'cross-fingers' before they can inform damage. To be identified by the very culture which formed them, based upon that self-same cultures ethical constructs. We have already determined this simply will not happen.

The SBS ‘Join In’ strategy seeks to have Other, Abbott included to accept Muslims as is ignoring cultural ethical differences, claiming this will enable inter-cultural harmony. It is a strategy which ignores a critical fact, the degree with which Other is defined as evil, etc , not on the cultural Team, is the final determinant of a cultures ability to find accommodation with Other cultures within their same space.  

Clearly SBS is ignoring the reality, it is one based upon ‘Freedom of Religion’ and Multiculturalism which is ethical relativism, where Abbott has clearly come to the conclusion, rightly, the relative independence these constructs allow cultures are simply informing schism not harmony.


Abbott is right, SBS is ignoring the fact cultures can and do inform evil as well as good and this has nothing to do with external factors to the culture, absent fathers, economics, social marginalization, etc but can and invariably is generated direct from the cultures own construct of Other. Change this construct within the Islamic codex by force if necessary or change nothing. It will not take 100 years it will take at least 1000, to two. At least one genocide construct of Other will be removed from the Public Square.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

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?

Are the 'Good' Responsible for Stopping Evil Or Are the 'Good'-'Moderate'-'Radical' Responsible for Creating Evil? Why is this an extremely important question? Because it determines the nature of public policy in dealing with culturally derived evil, it is my view fallacious assumptions about the 'Good' adherent and/or Other being even capable of 'Stopping Evil' is enabling Evil to happen and prosper.

You ask "Why aren't normal decent Muslims doing anything to denounce the Evil being done by others in the name of their Religion......?"

You and many others as we see not only in Australia but across the world are asking the same question of their own so called ‘moderate’ Muslim communities. It was the same asked of the adherents of so called ‘moderates’ of the Nazi ideology, of the adherent of so called ‘moderates’ of the communist ideology, of the adherent of so called ‘moderates’ of the French revolution Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, ……… It could be equally applied now to many cultures across the world.


"Why aren't normal decent North Koreans doing anything to denounce the Evil being done by others in the name of their ideology......?"


It is interesting is it not we have no qualms about determining it is impossible for the 'good'-'moderate' North Koreans to voice an opinion calling into question the actions of a supposed 'few' cultural altruistic enforcers linked inexorably in ethics to the North Korean cultural Leaders/Leader. When the exact same forces at this very moment are at play in our own cultures and some of us still call it Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Religion.....


It should be noted the enabling of Evil by blaming 'good' people for inaction can be just as well applied to cultural action/in-action regards climate change as cultural derived terror and major schism. Given the 'good' relative inaction/action enabling 'Evil' you have to ask yourself were any or even some of them in reality upon examination able to be determined 'good' in the first place?


There is a key element of your statement ‘others’ which is reflective of a fallacy regards culture, for within this fallacy lies the reason why invariably not nearly enough ‘normal decent’ adherents of a culture ‘denounce’ ‘Evil’ being done in the name of their ideology. 


Einstein understood why:

"Communities (cultures) tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness." (Albert Einstein, 1934)

It is the fallacy of the ‘distinct’ radical ideology existing apart but derived from the exact same cultural foundation codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) which cultural psychologists refer to as a cultures “artefacts, rituals and text”. 


It is the same logic as making a sponge cake and because of gravity and heat the bottom of the sponge cake is marginally denser, determining subjectively this part is ‘not of the sponge cake’ at all – distinct, but at the same time being completely unable to determine at what exact point this subjectively determined existence of a distinct ‘not-sponge’ cake starts and the ‘true’ ‘sponge cake’ ends. 


It is the same with the notion of so called cultural ‘moderates’ within a culture your external view of what a moderate is within a culture can be and invariably is quite different than the internal view as well as perception of radical – there is no start and end – otherwise both would be derived from different cultures. There is only relative closeness, lack of ethical difference which would exclude one adherent communicating with another.


One test I believe for the relative closeness of a cultures so called self-described or externally described ‘moderates’ to the ‘radicals’ is the ‘degree of separation test’ in terms of physical contact (communication)/support (social, economic, health). The closer this can be proved to be the less credence can be placed upon a notion the moderate is separated in any way to the radical’s cultural ethics or actions.


"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


As with a person’s genetic (biological) state passed down from parents creates a propensity in regards behavior i.e. intelligence, personality, etc within boundaries – biological bounded behavioral variance. So it is with “artefacts, rituals and text” passed down to us by our cultures combined with our biological – genetic state which inform our individual and cultural group bounded rationalities – based upon ideological models which define cultural specific ‘rational’ decisions.


In other words there is no such thing as a ‘distinct’ separate radical component of a culture, there is no ‘other’ all adherents of a culture are contained within a continuum from and internal and external perspective which can be quite different of ‘good’-moderate’-‘radical’ exhibiting consistent constant cultural bounded behavioral characteristics from generation to generation.


Therefore unless the cultural codex contains (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) to justify and authorize terror and major schism it simply cannot occur. 


Taking criminal/insane violent outlier attacks from one culture to excuse what happens in another culture derived from its adherents ‘rational’ decisions based upon their cultural codex model and determining such acts as those of ‘lunatics’ is misrepresenting the truth. 


Where as in the first culture the acts are determined as anti-social (criminal) based upon its cultural bounded rationality and insane based upon psychological determination in the second culture because for instance a genocidal construct of Other exists, as it clearly does in Islam, within the cultural codex model to inform the cultural bounded rationality by which ‘rational cultural decisions are made such acts are not those done by ‘lunatics’ but by ‘rational’ normal cultural adherents. 


They are not ‘other’ they are not criminal/insane outliers they are inherently of the culture existing within the ‘expected’ cultural behavioral variance based upon the content of its cultural codex model.


It would appear I have been rather pedantic regards the non-existence of ‘others’ but it is very important to show why ‘others’ as a cultural notion cannot exist for it is the very reason why you have had to ask the question in the first place.


Getting back to your question it is a demand for action and simultaneously an accusation based upon an old observation much older I suspect than those to whom it is currently attributed, John Stuart Mill and possible paraphrasing of Edmund Burke (January 12, 1729 – July 9, 1797) who was an Irish political philosopher.


“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” (Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, in an address at the University of St. Andrew (1 February 1867) 

Attributed to Edmund Burke “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Your argument is in essence "Evil happens and prospers when good 'normal decent' people do nothing." and why is it 'normal decent' Muslims are ‘doing nothing’ to stop this ‘Evil’ being derived from their very own culture.


In my view given the time period Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill have placed the cart before the horse. It places the onus for action in the wrong place and importantly fails to take account of two very important truths. Firstly the very existence of differing cultural rational models with quite distinct notions of what is ‘Evil’ and secondly there is no ‘distinct’ radical culture separate from cultural complicity of the whole informing terror and major schism – the reason being the so called radicals are representing the ‘true’ rational of their cultural codex. This is the actual reason why rationally based upon their own Islamic cultural codex Muslim persons stay silent.


A cultures “radicals” reflects adherence to cultural ‘root’, ‘origin’ ethical constructs? Islamic leaders” and the ‘good’-‘moderate’ adherents would therefore be arguing against what is clearly justified and authorized by their own Islamic codex.


‘Radicals’ by definition are “Of action, change, an idea, etc.,: going to the root or origin; pertaining to or affecting what is fundamental; far reaching, thorough.”


Radical therefore represent the ‘root’ the ‘origin’ the ‘true’ Islam, ISIS are not utilizing external ethical constructs of Other, such as equality of women, it is wrong to determine Other as “evil”, “deaf, dumb and blind” and visit ‘grievous harm’ or ‘severe penalty’ upon Other because they have a differing belief system, as avowed Muslims they have to be utilising Islamic derived ethical constructs. You are in essence demanding Muslims go against their own Islamic teachings.


Therefore it is not ‘good’ peoples reticence to confront cultural evil that enables ‘Evil to happen and prosper’ because the notion of ‘good’ people is a universal concept which includes the ‘good’ people adherents of the very cultural codex which enables the ‘Evil’ to occur in the first place. These ‘good’ people are just as adept, and even more so at developing cultural counter-arguments defending their culture from informing ‘Evil’ by claiming the impossible that they exist as a ‘distinct’ separate culture disconnected in any way to the ‘Evil’ ‘others’ invariably utilizing selected circumscribed cultural codex to justify their erroneous position – as with the sponge cake unable to identify exactly where this ethical break of a separate culture from the radicals the ‘true believers’ actually occurs. For if the codex does not have violent constructs regards Other no violence would occur yet it does – therefore?


This leaves the Other ‘good’ people yet are they still responsible for the ‘Evil’ of another culture if they do not confront it? It proposes you are responsible for someone else’s crime – is this true?


Clearly not.


"Evil happens and prospers when the 'good'-'moderate'-radical' people within a cultural behavioral variance, of exactly the same cultural codex utilise culturally developed counter-argument, clearly contained within their codex, to blame either Other or symptoms of their own codex, 'radicals', and due to culturally developed bias cannot, will not see it is their core "artefacts, rituals and text" which are always the 'root', the 'origin' cause, and delete it or amend it.


"Evil happens and prospers" when ‘good’ people do nothing." is therefore simply not true. Until humanity understands this and moves with prejudice to address the ‘truth’ specific cultural ‘good’-‘moderate’-‘radical’ people inform and sustain cultural ‘Evil’ – cause ‘Evil’ to happen and prosper we will continue to deal with the symptoms of cultural Evil and not its cause the cultural codex hard coded constructs of Other requiring to be changed or deleted with force if necessary to remove them from the Public Square.



Enough lies, the Arab body politic created the ISIS cancer  Saturday, 16 August 2014 - AND THEREFORE?


Let us reflect upon the utilization of ‘normal decent’ it is a notion which ignores an inconvenient 'truth' the internally perceived 'good' of any cultures behavioral variance in terms of their cultural ethical constructs are aligned more closely to, if not exactly the same as those the radicals of any culture are seeking to have ‘moderates’ aligned to and Other subjected to. The ‘good’ from an external Other perspective rise to the degree they are determined to align to and/or respects Others ethical constructs, in other words ‘good’ from an external Other perspective are perceived as utilizing Others ethical constructs as blockers/substitutes for their own cultural ethics.


This raises two issues firstly when a person says from another culture they are ‘moderates’ we immediately assume our own cultural view of ‘moderation’ not theirs. It also raises a ‘truth’ no adherent believes they are radicals, adherents believe all along the cultural behavioral variance they are the ‘true’ representatives of the intent of the cultural codex.   


The utilization of 'normal' infers two meanings one is 'sanity', 'rational behavior' and secondly the first meaning frames internal and externally individual perceived existence of a cultural ethical mean which poses no internal or external threat to adherents or to Other. This is despite the fact 'normal decent' is a very subjective notion which ignores the reality that the real risk to Other and even to adherents of any culture is not some subjective notion of a cultural normative ethical mean but what a cultures consistent, constant, behavioral variance, not only actually inform, but also in time and space what it potentially can inform given history and the nature of its cultural foundation codex which is the determinant of outcome.



It also ignores a truth a cultures ethical mean even if it was possible to be derived from the wisdom of the crowd internal adherent view or external Others view are not static in time and space it moves as the ‘few’ altruistic cultural enforcers grow or shrink in influence.

Friday, August 15, 2014

“We are not required to apologise on behalf of a lunatic,” The spiritual leader of Australia's Muslims Professor Ibrahim Abu Mohamed - True. But you are required to apologize for a 'normal' person following your own 'rational' Islamic model of genocide.

The spiritual leader of Australia's Muslims Professor Ibrahim Abu Mohamed says many more radical fighters could have travelled from Australia to Iraq and Syria without the efforts of local Imams. Source:Jason Om Lateline Wed 13 Aug 2014, 11:14pm
"On Wednesday, Professor Mohamed spoke in Arabic in an interview with the ABC’s Lateline program about Sharrouf’s now infamous photo of his son holding the severed head of a Syrian soldier — published in The Australian on Monday — and defended efforts to steer young people away from fighting in Syria and Iraq.

“We are not required to apologise on behalf of a lunatic,” he said in relation to Sharrouf, who is in Iraq with his family."
To reach the radicals, preach in English MARK SCHLIEBS THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 15, 2014 12:00 AM

In considering the following comment please note the meaning of 'rational'.
"..to 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."

'Rational' cultural decisions are simply decisions made by adherents consistent with a model in this case Islamic codex.

“We are not required to apologise on behalf of a lunatic,” said Professor Mohamed

Cultural psychology appears to indicate there is a significant difference between cultural outliers of insane/criminal actions and inherent behavior based upon 'normal' adherent rational based upon an ideological model such as Islam.

It appears Sharrouf can point to Islamic text within the Quran listed in a comment on the article that determines Sharrouf is acting in accordance to Islamic teachings direct from the Quran.

@@@@@ 4 HOURS AGO
............
Qur’an:9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers [NB: this is the Infidel! Jews and Christians]  wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

The above is simply only a part of the action segment of the Islamic genocide construct of Other 'normal' Muslim Sharrouf  is following.

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

"Described by neighbours in the Melbourne suburbs as a "normal kid", the baby-faced 18-year-old wore a bomb belt on July 17 and blew himself up for ISIS."
Two clicks away from a suicide bomber COLLEEN EGAN The West Australian August 18, 2014

"normal kid (muslim) ... in the Melbourne suburbs" suddenly a "lunatic" (not-Muslim) in Iraq? I am not sure psychology supports such a transition.

Sharrouf if he is following the Islamic 'rational' model of behavior as dictated by the Islamic cultural codex (model) Sharrouf is not a 'lunatic' he is 'normal'. A 'normal' Muslim who exists within the bounded 'rationality', also known as cultural behavioral variance or spectrum, of the Islamic codex model.

This being the case, which it is Professor Mohamed, as a professed adherent and advocate of the Islamic model which clearly contains such destructive cultural directives you indeed owe Other a very sincere apology.

And better still your apology would be taken much more seriously if you publically proclaimed such codex construct of Other will be removed immediately so as not to inform future adherents behavior.

Until this is done you Professor Mohamed as a practicing Muslim cannot validly determine Sharrouf a lunatic under the Islamic model. In fact neither can I even now because I know Sharrouf is simply rationally following the Islamic model.

Professor Mohamed you have this ethical construct within your Islamic codex what did you expect him to do?

"Professor Ibrahim Abu Mohamed says many more radical fighters could have travelled from Australia to Iraq and Syria without the efforts of local Imams."

I would also suggest to Professor Mohammad telling Other it could be worse is no comfort in terms of the victims nor wasted resources better spent on a flourishing life than protecting ourselves from our neighbors.

To be subject to some quantifiable terror and be told you are lucky because of us it could have been worse - really sends what message in reality to Other?

Islamic culture is inherently peaceful and that fears of current and increasing future threat of Muslims is nonexistent as the Australian Muslim leaders as we can see and hear from even Muslims themselves within, are being silenced or even participating in promoting increasing acceptance of moving towards the 'true' Islamic constructs of Other and women?

Other wants and has a right to no terror or major schism - congratulating yourself on just delivering 'some' is an obscenity.

"To reach the radicals, preach in English" - If the Islamic ethical constructs of Other and women are the same in one language as another and the exemplar (messianic) templates do not change what happens?



Abbas Aly, in the Islamic prayer hall that he built in Sydney in 2002, warns there is a language barrier between the Islamic leadership and radicals. Picture: Britta Campion Source: News Corp Australia

To reach the radicals, preach in English
MARK SCHLIEBS THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 15, 2014 12:00AM

How can “SENIOR Australian Islamic leaders” counter “radicals’ when the meaning of “radical” reflects adherence to Islamic ‘root’, ‘origin’ ethical constructs? “SENIOR Australian Islamic leaders” would therefore be arguing against what is clearly justified and authorized by their own Islamic codex.

I will develop an argument to reveal an inconvenient truth for Mr Abbas Aly that what he holds in his hand is the ‘real’ reason for the so called Muslim ‘radical’. So called ‘radical’ for it infers disconnect from the ‘true’ Islam where in fact ‘radical’ by its very definition connects directly to the ‘true’ Islam.

‘Radicals’ by definition are “Of action, change, an idea, etc.,: going to the root or origin; pertaining to or affecting what is fundamental; far reaching, thorough.”

Radical therefore represent the ‘root’ the ‘origin’ the ‘true’ Islam, they are not utilizing external ethical constructs of Other, such as equality of women, it is wrong to determine Other as “evil”, “deaf, dumb and blind” and visit ‘grievous harm’ or ‘severe penalty’ upon Other because they have a differing belief system.

The language by which the Islamic ethical constructs passes from cultural educators, leaders, exemplars to inform the nature of adherents makes no difference in time and space to cultural derived behavioral variance outcomes. Because the Islamic ethical constructs have not changed.

Also 'Radical Islamists' are not utilizing non-Islamic cultural codex exemplar (messianic) templates to reinforce the justification for their behavior, they are not utilizing Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, Karl Marx, … they are utilizing ‘true’ Islamic exemplars to inform their behavior – it is simple historical record.

As Mr Nawaz a Muslim points out correctly below 'radical Islamists' are the ‘true believers’. Like Mr Abbas Aly, Mr Nawaz is only too aware of the threat ‘radical Islamists’ pose for humanity but has the honesty to tell it as it is 'Radical Islamists' derive their ethics directly from the Islamic text Mr Abbas Aly is holding in his hands be it in English or Swahili.

“Mr Ali has been recorded saying that over the course of seven years he had identified 240 'radical Islamists' within his community (Australian) centre, 120 of whom continue to have extremist views and are seen to potentially be on a path to "extreme acts".

Mr Nawaz, who says he understands extreme Islamist groups because he was once a true believer, thinks Mr Ali's admission is a serious concern."
Source: Eradicating radical Islam July 3, 2013, 6:18 pm James Thomas Today Tonight

Every culture has an inherent cultural codex informed behavioral variance which informs actions of ‘radical’, ‘extremists’ at both ends of the spectrum. All along the spectrum each adherent rightly if utilizing the cultural codex without utilization of external Other ethical constructs and not ignoring the boundary qualifications inherent in any codex of one statement upon another can hand on heart claim to represent the ‘true’ Islamic codex.

So the notion of a non-radical ’true’ Islam or of any other cultural codex construct is a nonsense.

The point is some Cultural codex by their very nature consistently constantly from generation to generation inform terror against Other, and subjugation of women to Mans will.

This was understood thousands of years ago and what had to be done to stop diabolical cultural behavior, yet humanity still refuses to accept words and sentence strung together particularly in religious cultural codex such as Islam, will inform action, terror if allowed to remain within the codex. And even if the culture consistently constantly does from generation to generation inform terror and subjugation of women we hold the symptoms to account, ‘radicals’, rather than the actual cause “authors of fables” (exemplars) and the “fables” (oral or textual communication) themselves.

Why was it Plato thousands of years ago advised, No, more insisted, "..a superintendence over the authors of fables" (related to Gods and associated Heroes(associated human entities))? Why did Plato have real concerns about his own Greek cultural codex (religion) (textual (fables) and exemplar (messianic) templates (Gods and heroes))?

It was because Plato realized as do psychologists and educationalists today such fables repeated by "nurses and mothers (teachers, guardians,..)..to their children,.. may thus mold their minds with the fables even more than they shape their bodies with the hand.". In other words such cultural text are not benign but opens “youth” imbued with such diabolical notions to an "imitation" deemed as "doing nothing extraordinary if he commits the foulest of crimes," a real possibility.

Even our dearly loved recently departed good guy Robin Williams understood.

"No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world." Robin Williams

Sometimes as we know change (action) for the better or for the worse.

Cultural psychologists also agree with Plato and Robin Williams – does it really take a genius to work this out?

"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

Therefore the core problem from an individual and cultural psychological view is that there must be Islamic "artefacts, rituals and text" that urgently need being deleted to stop this cultural utilisation of violence internally and externally.

This is the core issue, not what languages are utilized to use the exact same cultural "artefacts, rituals and text" to inform behavior of subsequent generations of adherents.

You really want to resolve the problem of Islam:
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, August 13, 2014

SBS PROMOTES JOIN IN AND ATTEMPTS THE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE A 'TRUE' ISLAM TO CLEAR ITS CONSCIENCE

Joining the Fight SBS Insight Tuesday, 12 Aug 14

SBS: “WITHOUT OUR DIFFERENCES, WE WOULDN'T BE THE SAME” : PROMOTING A GENOCIDE MISOGYNISTIC ISLAMIC CULTURAL CODEX IS NOT A SOCIETAL GOOD.

The irony of the SBS 'Join In' campaign to promote at its forefront a Muslim benign 'beautiful' image as the 'true' Islam, the intent of which is to subvert rational fear of what Islam/Muslims do inform, as 'Joining  the Fight' clearly proves, shows the insanity of the SBS idea of what it determines as a societal 'good'. For the SBS campaign is in essence in promoting the acceptance of Islam is enabling the Muslim terror and major schism to intensify and become inculcated within Australian society as a 'norm'.

"They ISIS (how many other names since the seventh century) do not represent ('true') Islam" we hear constantly as each new reflection of the Islamic codex rise."

ISIS are representing ('true') Islam straight from the Islamic codex, these Muslims can point to the Islamic textual and exemplar (messianic) templates, as can I, which justify and authorise their diabolical actions. Therefore ISIS do represent the 'true' Islam.


A 'true' Islam which is even being promoted by Australian Citizens.
Aussie fighters leading extremist PR: ASIO THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 13, 2014 12:00AM


The tragedy of this notion by the political elite particularly in the security policy areas in Western culture that a 'True' benign Islam even beneficial 'true' Islam exists is an extremely dangerous tactic in the strategy to achieve an obscenity, enabling Islamic ethics and law into the Public Square and determining it a 'good'.  

As with blasphemy laws for example in Pakistan such pandering to Muslims simply underwrites the legitimacy of the intensification of attacks upon Other and the diminution of women's rights within the Public Square. We must seek to remove Islam from the Public Square if we wish to enable a flourishing life for citizens not promote terror and major schism.

If other Muslims determine not to follow the same Islamic codex and utilise Others ethical constructs to block their own Islamic codex from manifesting in their own behavior these Muslims are not following 'true' Islam are not the 'true believers'. Yes they exist within the Muslim Behavioral variance for they do adhere to Islam in part and may determine themselves as believing in the 'true' Islam but so can every other Muslim within exactly the same Muslim Behavioral variance.

The absurdity is at every ethical combination point of the Muslim Behavioral variance be it derived from 'pure' Islamic codex or a combination with Others ethical constructs i.e. regards woman's place in society, adherents and non-adherents alike can claim the 'true' Islam exists - which is exactly what happens.

We had a woman tonight on SBS insight claim 'true' Islam was not being followed by ISIS and Peter Leahy claiming the same of 'radical muslims' in the press. One simply has to consider the question are even these two going to be in agreement as to what 'true' actually means? What in fact does even a 'true' 'radical' mean?

It is therefore not only a nonsense but I perceive a deliberate deception on the part of some and or delusion on the part of Others who you would consider given their educational status should know better.

ISIS are the 'true believers', their treatment of Other is following the Islamic codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) template) to the letter and behavior.

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).
......
Your identity comes not just from the cultural environment in which you live today, but from historical influences that have shaped that culture.
Psychology Burton,Western,Kowalski, 2012

Culture uses 'artefacts, rituals and text' to determine behavior which means what has to exist in the Islamic codex to support such behavior - it is not hard to find ISIS members found it as can I it is either deleted from the cultural codex when educating new generations or the Muslim terror it informs continues, it is that simple.

Own it.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

The Golden Rule of Cultures = Fools Gold for Other. Utilizing the existence of the Golden Rule in all cultures codex as proof all cultures can live in peace ignores the fact invariably it is culturally qualified.



"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law without contradiction," wrote Kant, emphasizing that I can't make a moral exception to myself. Since other people are moral rulemakers just as I am, they deserve to be treated as ends in themselves, rather than means to my own ends. Kantian ethics therefore is about duties we own to one another. source: Editorial Philosophy Now May/June 2014

Kant's view reflects a cultural position of universal duty derived from cultural ethics. Without consistency in ethics and informed relationship actions, 'norms' there would be chaos. Variability around the norm is generally factored expected given differing time and space constraints cultures face, particularly when in the societal minority where the full cultural feedback mechanisms cannot be realised either due to numbers and/or external cultural ethical blockers.

The nature of how we would expect to be treated derives directly from our cultural foundation codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates). If anywhere within there is a deleterious construct of Other, which invariably there is, we would expect as an adherent if deviating from the norm cultural altruistic punishment, the degree of punishment dependent directly on our own cultural codex not Others cultural penalty for the same type of cultural infraction, to force us back towards our cultural norm.

If we attempt to or actually change Architect and Builder, our culture, for another we expect to be subject to the penalty prescribed by our culture which can be anything from 'She's right mate', exclusionary action, or as we see each day 'grievous harm' or 'severest penalty'.

Therefore how we deem ourselves to be 'rightfully' treated is not universal never has been never will be until we are of one culture and even then individual genetic propensity will introduce variance of outcomes though still bounded by culture.

So when you see The Golden Rule being referred to be aware it is meant to lull you into a false sense of reality to enable the worst of ideological constructs to remain within the Public Square even though they in reality inform burning buildings broken bodies and lives.

To see how fallacious culturally The Golden Rule is, one simply has to check the individual construct of women relative to men for each specific belief system to see if the equivalency test applies between genders, if both are treated exactly the same. And also determine if there is a no different ethical construct between cultures as to the nature of gender and as viewed outside culture. Clearly this is not the case.  If a culture cannot stick to its so called Golden Rule internally and a specific culture views genders outside culture differently, i.e. the nature of Other women, how seriously can such a construct of The Golden Rule be viewed from an external viewpoint? Not very.

So the notion of a universal Golden Rule falls in a heap just on specific cultural gender constructs alone without even getting into how Other is defined and to be treated within and across each culture.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Professor Peter Leahy's determination wishful thinking wins cultural wars. Only a 100 years to go?

Image Source: We’ll fight radical Islam for 100 years, says ex-army head Peter Leahy, by Brendan Nicholson, Defence Editor, Canberra, THE AUSTRALIAN, AUGUST 09, 2014 12:00AM 

"They ISIS (how many other names since the seventh century) do not represent ('true') Islam" we hear constantly as each new reflection of the Islamic codex rise. ISIS (how many other names since the seventh century) are representing ('true') Islam straight from the Islamic codex, these Muslims can point to the Islamic textual and exemplar (messianic) templates, as can I, which justify and authorise their diabolical actions. Therefore ISIS (how many other names since the seventh century) do represent the 'true' Islam.


If other Muslims determine not to follow the same Islamic codex and utilise Others ethical constructs to block their own Islamic codex from manifesting in their own behavior these Muslims are not following 'true' Islam are not the 'true believers'. Yes they exist within the Muslim Behavioral variance for they do adhere to Islam in part and may determine themselves as believing in the 'true' Islam but so can every other Muslim within exactly the same Muslim Behavioral variance.


So it is nonsense for any person adherent or non-adherent to claim ownership and or knowledge of the existence of 'true' Islam if the behavior variance does not reflect the Islamic codex in its totality.

I would have Professor Leahy read the Psychology 102 text being taught in semester 2, 2014 on culture from his own University, he would read the following.

“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

What does this inform regards Professor Leahy’s following argument which in its own content contains a clear indication why it is not possible “the Muslim world, which so far seemed disinclined or unable to imagine a path to peace.”

“The solution had to come from within the Muslim world, which so far seemed disinclined or unable to imagine a path to peace.” Professor Leahy, a leading defence and strategic analyst.

The proponent of such a strategy determines leave it to the psychopath to come to a solution for his own inherent nature defined by cultural and genetic propensity which frames the psychopath’s very beliefs and subsequent actions.

It is the same strategy as having Heinrich Himmler a leading member of the Nazi Party of Nazi Germany delete all constructs of Other from Mein Kampf and delete Hitler as the exemplar (messianic) template, it assumes the mythical cultural relativist ‘moderate’ rational Nazi actually exists whose codex construct is counter to the very nature of their own cultural codex. We have no qualms that such a demand of Nazi adherents would never be met yet Professor Leahy has determined Islam is a special case.

It assumes a ‘true’ cultural behavioral variance exists outside of the very culture itself of which these cultural leaders, the exemplars of the culture, can turn and determine themselves as being just like ‘everyone’ else. As well as bringing all their culture along with them.

I ask Professor Leahy which Islamic ‘artefacts, rituals and text’ has he identified as being necessary to remove so they can no longer inform a Muslim 'filter' of terror against Other and the tactics by which such a claim of only a 100 years of cultural war with Islam can be justified given the war has been going on since the seventh century?

This is how cultural war between Islam and Western Secular philosophical precepts of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity can possibly end:

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...

Change the Architect and Builder or Change Nothing. The war continues until as Lincoln informs us either one or other takes the Public Square.

Postscript (12/8/2014):

As I feared the following indicates Australias highest levels of security assessment policy drivers of the Australian political response to cultural war with Islam/Muslims are putting Australian citizens in great danger and therefore Peter Leahy's determination of 100 years is a terrible underestimation of how long this war with Islam/Muslims will last.

"I REFER to the headline “We’ll fight Islam 100 years” (9/8). I did not say this. My concern is solely with radical Islam. Your headline has totally misrepresented my view. This matter is highly sensitive and the inaccuracy of your headline has justifiably caused a strong backlash from the Islamic community. I share their concern.


Due to the inaccuracy of your headline, many people have not understood the true nature of my comments. My concern is solely with the radical Islamists who distort the true meaning of Islam."

Peter Leahy, Canberra, ACT
Leahy’s concern is solely with the radical Islamists THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 12, 2014 12:00AM

Why? ‘Not Islam’. It is just not going to stand up to any reasonable evaluation as increasingly the broken bodies and lives keep rolling in.

If Peter Leahy cannot show how 'radical Islamists' are culturally derived via the ethical constructs inherent in Islamic cultural codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) differently than the Peter Leahy's notion of non-radical 'true' Islamist then it does not matter to actual outcomes. That is Peter Leahy has to prove nothing in the cultural formation in the non-radical Muslim provides in anyway an Islamic derived ethical bridge to Peter Leahy's notion of the 'radical Islamists'. 


There is a problem here in that Peter Leahy has to create two completely different cultures for his position to be determined valid.


If it does not alter outcomes the problem still remains systemic to the Islamic codex and informed Muslim behavioral variance it solves nothing. The terror and genocide still remains in the Muslim Behavioral variance to determine otherwise is to say you have been able to only to identify the 'true' Islamic codex but also have been able to move the whole Muslim culture to its adherence.  

If the Islamic codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) remains intact, so does the behavior terrorist and so called 'moderate'. So called 'moderate' because in reality they and the terrorist adhere to exactly the same genocidal codex. 

The absurdity at every ethical combination point of the Muslim Behavioral variance be it derived from 'pure' Islamic codex or a combination with Others ethical constructs i.e. regards woman's place in society, adherents and non-adherents alike can claim the 'true' Islam exists - which is exactly what happens.


It is therefore not only a nonsense but a deliberate deception on the part of some and or delusion on the part of Others who you would consider given their educational status to know better.



Professor Peter Leahy you can get away with this in your current intellectual and political circle of influence because it comes straight from the cultural relativist handbook based upon myths such as The Golden Rule and under the same paradigm the erroneous  ".. "normal" people under extreme pressure can do some horrible things, but then suffer for it for the rest of their lives, there are others in our midst, thankfully a small minority, who do actually derive a great deal of pleasure from seeing others suffer at their hands."

I would ask Peter Leahy and like minded to challenge their perspective by examining the following interchange foregoing if possible the immediate formulation of counter-argument until the end.  


  1. In reply to !!!!!!!
    "I have often wondered at what sort of pathways in the human brain lead a perfectly normal person to the base brutality of the ISIS fighters." !!!!!, you're making a big assumption that I think is erroneous, but critical to understanding this phenomenon. It's a pity the article did not discuss this important aspect. While "normal" people under extreme pressure can do some horrible things, but then suffer for it for the rest of their lives, there are others in our midst, thankfully a small minority, who do actually derive a great deal of pleasure from seeing others suffer at their hands. These (sadists) are generally a bunch of narcissistic psychopaths, who revel in war, and come out of the woodwork when the opportunity arises, travelling from far afield if necessary (as we're seeing in the Middle East now). They're always out front, leading and stirring up mobs, and they're vicious alpha males when it helps their cause. During peacetime, they might be involved in underworld criminal activities, but it's war that really brings out their latent qualities. Under their influence (and threat), of course any normal person who values his/her own life (and lives of others) will have no choice but to comply. War provides perfect opportunities for doing horrible things to others without the risk of legal punishment, while religion offers the justification, rendering one's perversions righteous. It allows one to act sanctimoniously, while crushing any potential opponents without further justification or the need to indulge in time-wasting negotiations.
    reportReply


  2. !!!!!!!


    In reply to !!!!!!!
    '!!!!!!!, you're making a big assumption that I know are erroneous'
    "While "normal" people under extreme pressure can do some horrible things, but then suffer for it for the rest of their lives, there are others in our midst, thankfully a small minority, who do actually derive a great deal of pleasure from seeing others suffer at their hands."
    Psychological research shows completely the opposite with 'normal' people who do participate in 'horrible' actions merely with the presence of contrived 'authority in a white coat.
    There is a famous/infamous research study carried out by a person interested in ascertaining why it was so called 'normal' germans in 1930's1940's participated in the most horrendous of acts against fellow humanity.
    In describing the nature of his research to the psychology/psychiatric fraternity they responded as you only psychopaths the (few - approx 10% - a lot when you think about it) who derived positive feedback from such acts would think of applying an electric shock to someone above what they clearly know is shown as lethal - even after the torment of the supposed victim is silenced. I will leave it to you to find out how many went above the threshold - lets just to say it was not 10%. or anywhere near it.
    There was also research project regards utilising 'normal' people in a 'prison' scenario - the result - they had to stop the experiment it became very ugly - lets say moving inexorably in the direction of Abu Ghraib. So not only authority figures presence but actually being an authority figure can cause a change in behavior of 'normal' people to inform very nasty outcomes. And this transformation is in essence in terms of time is almost immediate.
    Also terror does not occur in a vacuum as it needs action on the part of the terrorist and it also requires inaction of the fellow adherents who determine themselves 'moderates' - 'normal citizens of perceived "conscience and a sense of responsibility", I believe erroneously if their cultural codex contains the cultural codex (text and exemplar (messianic) templates) of a genocide construct as Islam does (it is not alone-which is really no excuse).
    "Communities (cultures) tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness." (Albert Einstein, 1934)
    How is it done, with so many so called self-defined moderate 'individuals of conscience and a sense of responsibility'? As it always has been, cultural altruistic punishment imposed by a 'few' with increased intensity. Justified and authorised by cultural codex otherwise it would not be possible.
    "• Parents do not have the confidence to argue against the articulate and forceful activists who seek to impose their views, for fear of being branded as disloyal to their faith or their community." Schools face new curbs on extremism after Birmingham Trojan horse affair Patrick Wintour, Political editor The Guardian, Wednesday 23 July 2014 06.42 AEST
    Your following determination is wrong - what is happening is the behavior by those who act and do not act are reflective of their cultural behavioral variance bounded justified and authorised by a cultural codex by those who hold the gun and do not. It is culture reflected in action and inaction.
    "These (sadists) 'normal culturalised citizens' are bunch of narcissistic psychopaths 'normal citizens following cultural dictates' , who revel in war 'whose cultural codex informs terror and war against Other', and come out of the woodwork when the opportunity arises, 'and come out of the wood work in time and space based on the rules of engagement dictated by their culture - ie when numbers are able to enforce cultural norms and or enough resources political power and tools of terror are available'.
    Alas this is the reality cultures are not benign - having cups of tea at Maslow's level 1 is intercultural bliss but above this all bets are off because there are not ethical conflicts inherent in a can of beans.
  3. Iranian/Islamic Tranquility of Silence

    "Pressed on whether the ANIC had been vocal enough in condemning young jihadis travelling abroad, Mr Benegadi referred The Australian to a press release issued by the council in June in response to suggestions by the chief of the NSW Counter-Terrorism Squad, Peter Dein, that the Muslim ­leadership had been “very passive” in the face of home-grown jihadis."
    Islamic leaders deny silence on local jihadists THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 08, 2014 12:00AM

    "AUSTRALIA’S Muslim leaders need to speak out against Islamic State terrorists or risk losing their credibility and ability to reach young men attracted to the extremists’ cause

    Berhan Ahmed, who came to Australia as a young Eritrean refugee and is now a prominent voice in Melbourne’s African community, has called for stronger condemnation of the Islamic State from his fellow Muslims, saying current religious leaders have failed to mount a vocal and rational opposition to radical Islamism.

    “What is happening in the name of Islam, the leaders have to stand and condemn it,” said Dr Ahmed, who studied while working as a taxi driver and tram conductor and is now a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne.

    I’m appalled to see silence when there are so many (violent) things happening. As a Muslim I just feel disgusted. We have to speak, and we have to speak for justice.”

    Muslim leaders must speak out against extremists, academic warns
    THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 13, 2014 12:00AM
  4. "What is terribly worrying is that, in the face of the IS atrocities, and extremist British Muslims' involvement in jihadism, mainstream Muslims here have remained largely silent at what is happening in Iraq today.
    Where is the mass outcry against the systematic killing of the Iraqi Yazidis, the deadly harassment of Christians and the mindless destruction of their churches?

    Where are the co-ordinated protests against the Islamic State? Where are the popular calls for an end to organised genocide by Sunni Muslim militants in Iraq?

    This is pure hypocrisy and double standards from British Muslims. Only last week, more than 200,000 people — a large proportion of them British Muslims — took to the streets of London and Manchester to protest against Israel.
    "
    Why aren't British Muslims condemning the maniacs killing in the name of Islam? From a leading Muslim voice, a troubling question... b
    y DR TAJ HARGEY Daily Mail PUBLISHED: 09:38 AEST, 15 August 2014

An example of a cultural altruistic enforcer at work, you do not need to do this to many times to achieve the desires outcome. But again it would not be possible to do without it already being justified and authorised by the Islamic cultural codex. There will always be the heroic few that will stand and that is the point it is only ever the few - and how long do they last? 

Home-grown killer threatens outspoken GP Jamal Rifi
MARK SCHLIEBS AND GINA RUSHTON THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 14, 2014 12:00AM

This action is not only a threat against adherents only is it? Under such cover what in fact happens? The cultural ethical norms can be pushed forward by the very same Islamic leaders claiming they are moderates - the definition of moderate moves. As in Birmingham the totally unacceptable just years before becomes the norm all the while claiming what?

"Dr Rifi said he felt “extremely safe” after speaking with Mr Scipione and local police officers."

It is important to show no fear from the security/cultural perspective to say he felt “extremely safe”  for as Dr Rifi would know even if he had to be told revealing the truth either verbally or otherwise is exactly what altruistic enforcers want and Dr Rifi hopes obviously not to be alone on the limb along with Australian security so as to encourage similar stands to be taken. For group research shows in group vocalising resistance to actions particularly increasing numbers of the same particularly in leadership roles can have an impact.

You really believe anyone actually inclusive of the Muslim community buys this for a minute? With a muslim community leadership that is refusing to 'fully' cooperate? You really think what has happened everywhere else will not cannot happen here -whilst you utilise exactly the same methods. This is the same logic as if only we could turn them into accountants and PTA members - and then one remembers.

NYC accountant gets 18 years for aiding al-Qaeda, Birmingham

Ever heard of a cultural strategic inflection point - this is one. The following is a facet of how a culture destroys itself. It is not a new story in fact it is often repeated.

'What we saw to be honest, (is) very disturbing, especially when it's done in the name of Islam,' Dr Rifi said.

'And it can only be done by a very sick person'.

'I refuse to be fearful of their threats': Now Aussie jihad thugs offer $1000 for address of a Sydney Muslim doctor who condemned them

When you have a model as Islam which justifies and authorises such acts the perpetrators are invariably not 'very sick persons' as the Germans in WWII they are following a 'rational' course set down by the cultural codex model of behavior, they are sane persons.

It is not in the name Islam it is Islam. 


Until this is accepted and the Islamic codex is removed from the Public Square terror and major schism continues. Dr Rifi should reread the Quran and slow down and construct Other he would find his view is utilising ethical constructs completely at odds with his own belief system if he is indeed a Muslim.

If the construct exists within the Quran alone without even considering the exemplar (messianic) templates to provide the rational for such terror against Other what is Dr Rifi inherently supporting by his continued adherence for not only this generation but those to come? Innocent? 

In no way via the Islamic network connected at all in sustaining even his attacker Mohamed Elomar by past or present acts within the Muslim community?Peter Leahy has not noticed the shift in the ethical norm aligned to the Islamic codex being reflected in Australian 'moderate' Muslims actions or inaction (silence - not only of Muslims leaders along with moderates themselves) to enable ....? 

The Jihad against Christmas to the following image no movement which would indicate a systemic threat from Islam as a whole rather than so called 'radical' elements. 

Khaled Sharrouf’s son holds the decapitated head of a Syrian soldier. Source: Twitter

‘Like a showbag’: Tony Abbott says hideous photo reinforces need for stronger laws
JACQUELIN MAGNAY THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 13, 2014 7:08AM

Peter Leahy is not suffering from the same self-delusion as Norman Hillson in 1937 where clearly the definition of 'radical' as time passes takes on a whole new meaning to enable what?

Peter Leahy assures himself 'moderates' are in charge for did they not tell us all they were such, not only not a threat to our culture but its support, things could be worse?

“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

Celsus view "Christians unwillingness to sacrifice to the civic gods, accept public office and take up arms when asked was compromising the safety of the Roman empire and undermining the piety that sustained it." Christians a threat to the Roman/Greek culture and Empire was misplaced, Celsus was a bigot, racist, troll....misguided? 

Origan's reply a comfort to Celsus and Peter Leahy "We know of the existence in each city of another sort of country, created by the Word of God.", " We who by our prayers destroy all demons which stir up wars, violate oaths and disturb the peace, are of more help to emperors than those who do the fighting."

Tertullian should be taken at his word :

"We worship the one God.... There are others whom you regard as gods; we know them as demons. Never the less, it is the basic human right that everyone should be free to worship according to his own convictions. No one is either harmed or helped by anothers mans religion. Religion must be practiced freely, not by coercion.." 

Tetullians "Prescription Against Heretics" and views on women's place support the view no one "No one is either harmed or helped by anothers mans religion,...practiced freely, not by coercion." More importantly with the building of political control of space what actually happened. Tertullian's qualifying view "Philosophy as pop-paganism is a work of demons (De anima, i)" and the bibles textual support placed no Christian boundary in time upon Other violently or otherwise? No Greek philosophical universities closed down? No genocide, as look it has been written down? 

Should we believe another Leader of a cultural genocide codex when it is pointed out such words and ideas exist and as Robin Williams our dearly departed points out 'words and the ideas they represent do matter-they lead to change, to cultural action'? Cultural action which entails the whole cultural behavioral variance to enable such actions to occur.

Hans Achim Litten in cross-examined Hitler 1931 in a court case involving two workers stabbed by four Brownshirts (paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party). Litten understood clearly in his interrogation words and sentences are not written in foundation codex for no reason they are to inform ethics driving actions of adherents. 

Excerpts from the trial[edit]Litten: (...) Did you know that in the circles of the SA there is talk of a special rollkommando?

Hitler: I haven't heard anything about a rollkommando. (...)

Litten: You said that there will be no violent acts on the part of the National Socialist Party. Didn't Goebbels create the slogan, "one must pound the adversary to a pulp?"

Hitler: This is to be understood as "one must dispatch and destroy opposing organizations". (...)

(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'├ętat 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. (...)

This Western secular philosophically based 'empire' is going to be protected from exactly the same construct and cultural proclamations despite what is occurring in reality by taking their, Muslim leaders, mouthings of peace to all and selective utilisation of their Islamic codex in exactly the same way the Christians did with the Roman/Greek empire - are you suffering from a serious historical impediment Peter Leahy?

Is it possible to exclude in reality so called 'moderate' adherents of such a codex construct as Islam from culpability given their adherence to exactly the same "artefacts, rituals and text to develop and reinforce a shared sense of identity among members." as the radicals utilise and silence to enable those radicals to do what the do so well and the logistical support to do so?