Terror is to the Muslim/Nazi culture what Rohypnol is to Date Rapists.

Child abuse revelations divide “most shameful town in Britain” Reuters Tue, Sep 02 14:25 PM
Years of Rape and ‘Utter Contempt’ in Britain Life in an English Town Where Abuse of Young Girls Flourished By KATRIN BENNHOLD, NYT, SEPT. 1, 2014

Chris Gare
“To be honest with have a bigger problem with Catholics here than Muslims. But the very worst has to be the BBC and Westminster.” 

I think Chris Gare misses the absolute importance of what is said in this article. It contains within the reason for cultural terror, its actual purpose.

Terror is to the Muslim/Nazi culture what Rohypnol is to Date Rapists. Both achieve by utilising such methods what would be otherwise impossible – getting past outright rejection to tolerance to acceptance to the ultimate goal in time and space imposition of their will over a powerless Other.

As an astute British journalist observed, regards the failure of the British Cultural Gate Keepers when fears of Islamophobia (a non-existent condition) gave Muslim activists free rein in Birmingham schools, it is what happens ‘afterwards’, after cultural derived terror, its effect.

Cultural derived terror is a conditioning mechanism inherent as a process justified and authorized by cultures whose underlying ethical constructs, beliefs are abhorrent to Other.

Invariably this abhorrence relates to the cultural construct of women (women’s relative independence compared to man – informs man’s relative control over access to sex) and the very construct of Other (Others relative independence (even possible existence) compared to adherents – Informs Adherents relative control over access to resources via political power over who and under what conditions Other and adherents will be allowed into the Public Square – or hanged/beheaded/crucified/taxed/whipped/stoned/blown to bits/shot/raped/molested/sold into sexual slavery/etc. there.

Cultures in essence can be seen as individual persons, with behavioral variances. As with persons cultures behavioral variance can be modified by conditioning.

As with Pavlov’s dogs, you only have to ring the bell, and the dog expects food, and physiologically and psychologically prepares for it = conditioned behavior.

Pavlov’s other experiments also engendered quite horrific outcomes psychologically and psychologically upon animals just with the expectation a certain action may possibly occur.

Not too fond of Pavlov but his work proves a very important point.

It’s effect not of engendering ‘fear’ of personal injury because although this justifiably rises intrinsically we know the chances of being an actual victim is relatively small, it is the ‘fear’ engendered within the attacked Culture (Western Culture) as a whole, its institutions, its mind-set of ‘fear’ to attack real evil derived from another culture given what that culture has shown by its previous actions to be capable of.

You invariably hear from such cultures who are involved in delivering terror – ‘We only attack if attacked.”

The question then becomes for the “attacked” Cultures institutions the definition of “attacked” it is so open to interpretation and the codex such as Islam only required you to be an unbeliever/ to dispute the validity of Islam by your continued belief in another ideology to be attacked in the first place.

Therefore as has happened and is happening around the Western political world any challenge even for heinous crimes of the attacking culture in this case Muslims raises a possible terrorist reaction or accusations of heinous labeling of Islamophobe, bigot, racist whatever you do.

The later labeling even enforced by the Gate Keepers of the attacked culture to the detriment of their very own culture. The Gate Keepers become the altruist enforcers for the attacking culture – terror has achieved its purpose.

Cultural terror conditioning is utilized to ease the way of a cultures ‘abhorrent’ ethical constructs being firstly ‘tolerated’ to ‘accepted’ all along the way to the ability to ‘impose’ in time within another dominate cultures space.

Given the existing dominate constructs of women, for example Western feminist developed notion of equality, and Western notions of Other inherently equal not less, evil, condemned by God HIMSELF and therefore justifiably subject at least to supervision and tax, or ‘grievous harm’ or ‘severest penalty’.

Quran, Surah 8 Al-Anfal The Spoils of War 12 ” Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.’

One can imagine, if simply reading the Muslim cultural text which is utilized as the core codex to frame Muslim behavioral variance, even in the absence of historical or current records of Muslim behavior against Other, the degree of cultural terror required by a culture to impose upon another, to have that attacked culture accept such a construct within their space. Let alone the ‘abhorrent’ Muslim construct of women having to be subject to “mans’ leadership and have determined as at the least ‘acceptable’ women paraded before them wearing the very marks of the shame of such subservience in the form of veils, burkas and the like.

It simply has to, has to be a cultural war of attrition until as Lincoln points out when two diametrically opposed ethical constructs appear within the same Public Square in time one or the other will take the space.

How has it come to this. Two important proofs of the intended cultural impact of a cultural terror attack upon another culture working to undermine the very foundations of the attacked culture utilising their very own Gate Keepers – Muslim activists free rein in Birmingham schools & Child abuse revelations divide most shameful town in Britain.

Why is it such an abhorrent ethical construct was allowed within the Public Space in the first place? How is this achieved?

Why:
At its core is wishful thinking developed from Western constructs of ‘Freedom of Religion’ and Multiculturalism which were derived in essence from the same rational model Christianity variants ‘getting along’, at its core is ignorance of the fact your Western derived ‘rational’ life model in no way predicates what you may view as inevitable ‘rational’ outcomes in time derived from a different culture whose behavioral variance derives from a different ‘rational;’ model (ideology).

Freedom of Religion’ and Multiculturalism engendered the dangerous notion we are all in the end the same, human beings who all suffer and rejoice in commonality, health, loss of loved ones, joy of birth, good food, sunsets, etc.

The trouble is psychically (genetically) humans are relatively the same but the imposition of culture codex upon individual adherent behavioral variance ensures above Maslow’s level one of ‘the same’ we can be and are as cultures very different. We are not the same. We do not have the same beliefs regards women and Other the concurrence of which are so critical to harmony within society.

How:
Terror – conditioning of culture – it is not about engendering individual fear – it is all about engendering cultural fear of the attacked cultures institutions will to act against the attacking cultures intrusion of ethical constructs within its space and this cultures grab for political power over in situ resources to consolidate its cultural position relative to other cultures and in time destroy them.

‘destroy them’ yes because otherwise there would be no need for terror to have been culturally utilized in the first place.

As with everything else I am relatively sure a mathematical relationship will be found between the degree of utilisation of terror by any culture, to the relative cultural construct of Other held by that culture, the degree of vilification of Other relative to the veracity of the belief system being able to be sustained internally and sustained against outside ethical constructs, the ability in population/political power to attain maximum altruistic enforcement of core cultural constructs.

Cultural terrorism must have an inherent whole of cultural function otherwise it would not be able to be enabled in the first place – it simply would not exist.

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…

“‘I would say she was a moderate Muslim. I find it really bizarre, knowing her from school and then her suddenly being part of Islamic State.’” A schoolfriend

“Its motto is ‘realising your daughter’s potential’, and it is here, in these gentle, middle class surroundings, that a terrorist was raised.”
The private school jihadist: As PM unveils new terror crackdown, a Scots girl incites bloody massacre on British streets By KHALEDA RAHMAN and VICTORIA ALLEN FOR THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 09:54 AEST, 2 September 2014

“Freedom of Religion” – Why just Religion? – ‘Freedom of All Ideology’ – Sounds Fair? Nations ultimately more just and more peaceful and more successful?

Image

Religious Freedom Is a Tenet of Foreign Policy, Obama Says By PETER BAKER FEB. 6, 2014 

“History shows that nations that uphold the rights of their people, including the freedom of religion, are ultimately more just and more peaceful and more successful,” Mr. Obama

 “..more just and more peaceful and more successful”

This may be true where a common view of Other exists but as just the Muslim terror on the streets of Britain alone demonstrates ; ‘Freedom of Religion’ is allowing terror to proliferate, not only internal but external, and major societal schism to unfold, even Tony Blair has determined there is an inherent ‘problem’ with Islam which is leading to major societal schism..

The question has to be asked how many lives lost how much wealth and opportunity wasted on enabling the Freedom of Muslims in our streets – if the answer were no deaths no wealth misdirected then Obama would have some justification clearly he has none.

In fact the reality is the reverse.

Mr. Obama  ‘History shows that nations that uphold the rights of their people, including the freedom of religion, are ultimately less just and less peaceful and less successful,’

Egypt, Tunisia, Iran etc reveal what regards  ‘Freedom of Religion’ ?

Freedom to do What to Whom, For Whose Benefit?

Clearly not Other and women.

The absurdity is Obama himself points out regards Iran the very result of allowing a religious construct ‘Freedom’ which includes a genocide notion of Other in its codex anywhere near the Public Square.

“..an Iranian-American pastor imprisoned in Iran since September 2012 and sentenced to eight years in prison for disturbing national security by creating a network of Christian churches in private homes.”

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…

Does anyone seriously consider ‘Freedom of All Ideology’ on our streets without restriction? How is it despite certain religions having exactly the same construct of Other as certain fascist secular ideology one is regarded as acceptable and the other not? Given the result for Other are the same?