Thursday, November 14, 2013

Gun bans don't bother multiculturalists in Britain

A drug dealer has been jailed after police raided his flat and found a loaded gun hidden in a box of breakfast cereal.  Damion Murray, 27, concealed the revolver inside a box of Nestle Cheerios which he hid on the top of his fridge.

Officers stormed the ground floor flat in Balsall Heath, Birmingham, following a tip-off that drugs were being dealt from the property.  They found a loaded handgun wrapped in a green bandana and placed inside the box of £3.19p multigrain hoops.

Sixteen wraps of heroin and cocaine were also found in his bedroom along with £2,500 in cash.

A court was told Murray was overheard bragging to friends at a party that he was recruited to be a drug runner.

West Midlands Police uncovered phone records linking the painter and decorator to drug dealing activity across the city.

Murray was found guilty of supplying Class A drugs with intent to supply following a two day trial last week.  At Birmingham Crown Court, Murray was jailed for seven years.

After the case, Detective Constable Darren English, from Birmingham CID, said: 'The court saw through his lies and convicted him and we are pleased with the sentencing outcome.

'The evidence supplied to the court was overwhelming and proved that Murray was connected to drug dealing and had links to a local gang.  'Getting guns and gangs off our streets is a priority for West Midlands police and this gun has now been destroyed.

'I would appeal to anyone affected drug crime to have confidence and report criminality to the police where we can act upon your concerns.'


Unions urged to use Press law to silence newspapers: Threat of mass legal action to end critical media coverage

A Labour candidate has urged union bosses to use new Press regulations to launch class action complaints against newspapers who criticise them.

Clive Lewis – who is a member of three unions – criticised the Daily Mail’s exposure of bullying by Unite thugs.

In a chilling insight into the way Left-wingers plan to use the Royal Charter, the would-be MP said unions should get together to file complaints to combat ‘scurrilous’ reporting.

He told a new trade union think tank that in the past, only people specifically affected by a news story have been able to launch a grievance against a newspaper.

But under the terms of the Royal Charter – approved by the Privy Council last month to the delight of the Hacked Off pressure group – third party groups will be able to complain en masse in so-called class action cases.

The measure has been opposed by newspaper industry groups, who say it is likely to be used by activists to deter legitimate investigative journalism.

The Mail revealed how Unite thugs targeted the families and neighbours of staff at the Grangemouth petrochemical plant in Scotland during strike action last month

The paper has also led the way in covering the scandal in Falkirk, where Unite was accused of seeking to rig a Labour candidate selection.

Stephen Deans, the Unite boss in Scotland who was also chairman of Falkirk West Labour Party, has now lost his job at Grangemouth and the local party has been taken into special measures.

However, Labour candidate Mr Lewis has sought to paint Mr Deans – whose fight with the owners of Grangemouth nearly led to the plant closing – as a wronged man.

In a speech to the Unite-sponsored Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class), he said: ‘Let’s take for example the case of the chap who has had his life ruined by scurrilous accusations and innuendo in the Daily Mail.

'Under the new Royal Charter, his trade union, as an interested third party, could say actually, “We now have an interest in this.

'We think this generalisation affects not just him but all the trade union movement and its members and we are going to put in an official complaint and take this through the process”.’

Mr Lewis, the candidate for  Norwich South, describes himself on his Twitter account as a ‘proud socialist’ and former BBC reporter.

He is a member of three unions – Unite, the GMB and the National Union of Journalists.

Shipley MP Philip Davies, one of 15 Conservatives who voted against the Charter earlier this year, said the unions will use their financial muscle to ‘bully hard-pressed newspapers’.  ‘All that will happen is that newspapers will be afraid to publish things that are in the public interest,’ he said.

Mr Davies also praised the Mail’s reporting of Unite’s activities, adding: ‘Not only are they intimidating people in industrial disputes they’re now trying to intimidate people who write about it.’

Kent MP Tracey Crouch, another Charter Tory rebel, said: ‘It is just the sort of behaviour that newspapers have warned about.’

Yesterday Ed Miliband again refused to re-open his party’s inquiry into Falkirk, calling for people to ‘move on’ – despite the evidence that his officials never got to the bottom of what happened.


Throw Whitey Under the Trolley

If a runaway trolley were about to smash into a bus containing 100 trapped members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra, would you push a wholly innocent man named Chip Ellsworth III onto the tracks to stop the accident? What if the bus held 100 members of the New York Philharmonic and the guilt-free man's name is Tyrone Payton?

Would your politics have any relevance to whether you’d prefer to kill the white man to save the black musicians or to kill the black man to save the white musicians?

In a fascinating 2009 academic paper by four social psychologists, The Motivated Use of Moral Principles, UC Irvine students who identified as politically conservative were found to be racially evenhanded. When given the scenario about killing Chip to save 100 Harlemites, conservatives were no more or less likely to agree it’s the right thing to do than when told to ponder killing the man with the cornerback’s name to save 100 classical musicians.

In striking contrast, liberal students displayed greater bloodthirstiness when presented with the scenario that gave them an opportunity to kill the WASP to help the blacks.


The Psychology of Islamic Culture

It is commendable that someone should address the psychological profile of Muslims - that is, of individuals born into the culture of Islam - and Nicolai Sennels does that in his Jihad Watch article of October 30th, "Cultural psychology: How Islam managed to stay medieval for 1,400 years."  I began reading it with some eagerness. Over the years I have had nothing good to say about the psychology or mindset of anyone who was either born into the religion/ideology and never challenged it or attempted to escape it, or who had been converted to it.

Sennels has studied Muslims prisoners in Denmark and has a wealth of insights to offer, one of which is that, from my perspective, at least, Islam provides a purported "moral" base which especially Muslim criminals justify or rationalize their criminal actions. The New English Review published his May 2010 study, "Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences."

Under the subheading of "Religion," Sennels writes:

    "One main factor is that while all other religions allow their followers to interpret their holy scriptures, thereby making them relatively adaptable to secular law, human rights and individual needs, Islam categorizes Muslims who do not take the Quran literally as apostates. And according to Islamic law, the sharia, apostasy is to be punished with death. The sharia thus makes it impossible for Islamic societies ever to develop into modern, humanistic civilisations."

Centuries of religious warfare in the West passed before Christian religions were diluted by Enlightenment ideas and subsequently leashed by secular law and forbidden to wage intramural jihad against members of opposing sects. Islam, however, as Sennels points out, cannot be leashed or similarly contained because its fundamental doctrine is one of conquest and submission.

Sennels under this same subheading reveals one contributing factor to the demonstrable irrationality of Islam and Muslims:

    "Together with massive inbreeding - 70 percent of Pakistanis, 45 percent of Arabs and at least 30 percent of Turks are from first cousin-marriages (often through many generations) - this has resulted in the embarrassing fact that the Muslim world produces only one tenth of the world average when it comes to scientific research, and are dramatically under-represented among Nobel Prize winners. Fewer books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year."

The inbreeding factor can account for the epistemological myopia of Muslims, particularly Muslim criminals. An inability to think, to project, to employ common syllogisms, to formulate one's own personal values (and not submit to those of the Ummah or the tribe) are all direct results of inbreeding.

Sennels published a revealing article on Muslim inbreeding in May 2013 on Islam vs. Europe, "Serious consequences of Muslim inbreeding." Among those consequences are lower average intelligence and impaired health.

    "A rough estimate shows that close to half of the world's Muslims are inbred as a result of consanguineous marriages. In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins - children of siblings - and in Turkey the share is 25-30 percent.

    Statistical research on Arabic countries indicates that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algeria are blood-related as are 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (the southern part of Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen. According to Dr. Nadia Sakati of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, 45 percent of married Arab couples are blood-related.  The fact that many of these couples are themselves children of blood-related parents increases the risk of negative consequences."

Sennels reaches some disturbing conclusions that connect Muslims with terrorism.

    "The consequences of consanguineous marriages may also bring us closer to an understanding Islamic terrorism. One study suggests that many suicide bombers are suffering from depression. Among some Muslims their actions are considered a socially acceptable way of committing suicide in order to end mental torment.

    Being physically handicapped or mentally retarded often leads to exclusion. Becoming a martyr may be the only chance of achieving social recognition and honor. Some cases of Down's syndrome may be another unpleasant effect of inbreeding and al-Qaeda has been known to use people afflicted with it. People with low intelligence may also be more easily convinced that Islam, with its promise of 72 virgins to Muslims who die fighting for their religion, is true."

Under the subheading of "Child rearing" in his Jihad Watch article, Sennels describes the method by which Muslim children are browbeaten into obeying and following the rituals and "truths" of Islam, a scare tactic no so dissimilar from what I experienced growing up in a strict Catholic household. He writes:

    "Together with the wide use of violence and even torture within Muslim families, the horrific amount of daily family executions of Muslim youth, this is enough to keep the vast majority from even considering escaping the way of the Sharia. The Qur'an's and the Hadiths' many promises of hellfire to those who go against Muhammad's orders and example scares many from leavin the culture that bring them so much suffering."

Precisely. My own childhood thoughts on the matter were: If you need to frighten me into being a "good" Catholic, where is the moral argument? For example, watching on TV the various productions of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol in my formative years, when I witnessed Scrooge being terrorized into becoming a "virtuous" man, simply buttressed my conclusion that there was no moral argument other than "we say so, and take it on faith." So I can imagine how fearful a Muslim would be to question the "say so's" of his imam, mullah, or the Qur'an.

Fear of retribution may be one factor contributing to a rank-and-file Muslim's reluctance to question his "faith." Delving a little more deeply into that psychology, I would think that it is more a matter of being comfortable with an ideology/religion that makes no demands on one's mind. All one need do is conform to the rituals and strictures and one is left alone.

Under the subheading "Ethnic pride," Sennels drops the ball and does not elaborate on the fact that Islam is not a "race," but an ideology. I'm sure he realizes this, but it would have helped if he had mentioned it in passing. There are Arabic, Asian, black, Caucasian (converts), Chinese, and Indian and Pakistani Muslims, to name but a few ethnic or national groups.

    "Another cultural psychological factor enabling Islamic culture to remain unchanged in a globalised world with all its possibilities concerns Muslims' ethnic pride. No matter how ridiculous or embarrassing it may seem to the outsider, most Muslims are proud of being Muslim and a follower of Islam. According to Islam they are destined to dominate the rest of us, and we are so bad that we deserve the eternal fire."

Muslim spokesmen charging critics of Islam with "Islamophobia" imply or state directly that such a phobia is "racist." Too many Westerners fall for the fallacy and join in the wolf-pack howling to punish "Islamophobes," whether they write cogent books critical of Islam or leave a pig's head on the doorstep of a mosque. It makes no difference to the pitchfork-and-torch mobs.

Without quibbling about when the Dark Ages ended and the Medieval and Enlightenment eras began, Islam is product of the Dark Ages, of the 7th century, an enemy of knowledge, enlightenment, and freedom - if the Dark Ages can be described as a period in human history when superstition, ignorance, and slavery governed human existence.

Also, I don't know if many Muslims can say that they are "proud" of being Muslim. If there is any emotion at all, one can't imagine that it is anything other than a seething, repressed resentment of anyone who is not a Muslim, that is, of anyone who is not committed to a set of primitive rules that govern his existence and prohibit any kind of meaningful happiness. Pride, after all, implies a self that can take stock of one's virtues and one's relationship with existence and with other men. Islam, however, does its best to erase the notion of "self" from one's existence.

Islam is anti-life, anti-mind, anti-value, and anti-man. That is why it has been able to remain unchanged for 1,400 years. Its chief "strength" is its nihilistic nature, proof against all thought and life-affirming values. And there are just too many people - namely, Muslims - willing to surrender their minds to the suffocating comfort zone of "authority." Muslims don't have a corner on that "original sin" - the refusal to think - but their totalitarian ideology is an immediate peril to those who do choose to think.

I can't say I'm the first to say it: Islam is a mental illness. That's its fundamental psychology, the debilitating and crippling legacy of its founder transmitted through fourteen centuries of Muslim madness to its contemporary spokesmen, leaders, and rank-and-file.

The illness, however, is no defense against Islam's essential criminal character.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: