Last week, I had posted a video in which a French group calling itself Generation Identitaire introduced itself.
Today, they occupied the roof of a mosque (which has ‘fiery’ imams who frequently preach hate and violence) in France…
This is going to get interesting…
Raw milk symposium coming up in British Columbia:
‘Cowshare Canada presents the Fourth Annual International Raw Milk Symposium: Milk and our Children’s Future. The event will be held on Saturday, October 20, 2012, 8:30 am – 5:45 pm at the Delta Hotel near the Vancouver, International Airport. It is open to the public.
The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF), a U.S. based nutrition education non-profit is co-sponsoring the event. Sally Fallon Morell, WAPF founder and president, will speak on the superior body building and immune building properties of raw milk baby formula. Morell is widely credited for bringing about a resurgence of interest in farm-fresh milk with her science-based approach to educating parents about good nutrition.
Dr. Robert W. Buckingham, executive director of the School of Public Health, University of Saskatchewan will give the keynote address, Bridging Government Policy and Freedom of Choice, and in another session will explore ways to find common ground on the issue.’
Think about it…
Before today, I have never posted a video which I have not watched before posting. That is about to change…
Why?
For the last few days, I have been laid up with a serious migraine and have not been – to put it delicately – ‘functional’.
Yet, I have met Mr. Salim Mansur and liked him very, very much.
I have read his latest book and while I didn’t agree with everything in it, I didn’t particularly disagree with it, either. (I thought his error was one of omission of external pressures, while he was analysing the internal pressures Canada experienced from the cultural marxists under the guise of ‘multiculturalism’…in other words, while I agreed with him in principle, I thought he didn’t take the argument far enough.)
Actually, the very lively and vigorous discussion we got into after his Ottawa book launch could read like the beginning of a joke: a Muslim, a Jew and an atheist walk into a bar…
So, when I saw that a speech Salim Mansur has given had been published on YouTube, I thought it important enough to bring to you, my readers, as soon as I was sentient enough to type (even if I have not had the mental capacity to view it – till the meds wear off, anyway…) And, I do plan to watch this as soon as my brain will be capable of comprehending it.
In other words, I don’t know the context of the speech or what is in it, but, based on the fact that it is Salim Mansur speaking, I trust it will be very interesting indeed!
Thus, without much further ado, here are the videos of the speech, as they appeared on YouTube:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
The real danger in ‘asymmetric policing’ is that the people who are not in the ‘favoured’ group will notice – and will, eventually, loose faith in the police and the law as an avenue for them to not just get justice, but to protect their very existence.
When that happens, vigilante justice takes over – and that is a very, very bad situation which, I am sure, nobody wants.
Yet, that is the inevitable result of justice not being done – and justice not being seen to be done…sooner or later, no amount of political correctness will be able to contain the portion of the population that is not currently enjoying the ‘favoured’ status.
It is already beginning to happen…
Sometimes, it is good to think about our governance structures as if we were explaining them to an alien: it goes a long way towards exposing our blind spots.
I am still convinced that coercive taxation ought not play part in any modern government….
It drives me crazy when people engage in an honest discussion with me and, quite a while later on, we figure out that we are using the same words but intending different meanings for them!
It is impossible to have a meaningful exchange of ideas if we cannot define common labels to apply to those ideas.
This seems pretty basic and clear, but unless we are disciplined enough to define all terms prior to any debate or discussion, chances are we will fall into this trap.
And yes, of course, there are ‘weasels’ out there who intentionally twist words during the discussion in order to score cheap points.
And yes, of course, there are specific ‘weasel words’ some people use to intentionally obfuscate points and fudge discussions for whatever reasons they have.
But that is not what I am talking about.
I mean honest people, meaning to have honest discussions with each other, but not getting through to each other because the labels we use do not apply to the same ideas or principles – or apply to them in a different kind of a sense.
For example, the concept of what constitutes ‘murder’ is not universally understood the way we, in The West, define it: the unnecessary killing of another human being during peacetime.
For example, the Yanomamo people of South America considered ‘murder’ to be the killing of any living being which was ‘of their village’. So, the killing of a chicken or a dog that lived in one’s village was ‘murder’, but killing a human being who was not a member of their village was ‘killing’, but certainly not ‘murder’.
Now, the Yanomamo are matrilinear but patriarchal and so young boys go to live with their mother’s brother’s family – usually in a different village than into which they were born. When such a child first arrives into the village, they are in great danger: if the rest of the community does not accept them as ‘members of the village’ – for whatever reason – they will be killed (only click this link if you are willing to see this most vile and despicable practice!)
Brutal, but true…
Similarly, in ancient Rome, it was not ‘murder’ for a father to kill his children or cause them to be raised as slaves in unrelated families…
I suspect this Roman tradition is either the reflection of or the source of many cultural traditions where the father has absolute power over his family and it is not considered ‘murder’ for a parent to kill their offspring.
This is certainly the case under Sharia – Islamic law – which specifically states that a parent who kills their offspring is not guilty of murder.
This is important when we want to discuss the horrible, despicable practice of ‘honour killings’… it is not so much that all ‘honour killings’ are Islamic, but rather that the Islamic ‘honour killings’ are part of this tradition which is definitely seen as far back as Ancient Rome.
In most ‘traditions’, this is a cultural phenomenon only. It is something that can be altered through laws and education and, eventually, cultural change. And, while this practice had been widespread at one time, it has been greatly reduced through these means among Sikh, Hindu and Christians groups that once practiced it openly.
In Islam, because it has been codified into Sharia and because most Muslims recognize Sharia as superior to man-made laws, it is much more challenging to combat this practice.
It is a bit tricky, but, please, let me explain…
As many of us have been shouting as loudly and clearly as possible, it is Muslims themselves who are the greatest victims of Sharia.
Because, under Sharia, anyone who is an observant Muslim is obligated to kill anyone they see as ‘apostates’: those who have turned away from ‘true Islam’. So, if a child is seen as having left the true path of Islam, it is both obligatory to kill them as ‘apostates’ and it is not punishable, if it is a parent killing their offspring.
But, it goes further than that…
Under Sharia, it is not considered ‘murder’ to kill a non-Muslim – any time and under any circumstances. ‘Murder’ is only the ‘unlawful’ (under Sharia) killing of a Muslim: and it is lawful to kill a Muslim if he or she murders a Muslim, OR commits adultery, OR turns away from ‘true Islam’.
Just like Christianity, Islam demands that their religionists must ‘love’ god more than they love any family member, it is not difficult to see how what we, in The West, term ‘honour killings’ are believed (rightly or wrongly) to be not just permitted, but downright obligatory under Sharia.
Of course, there are some Islamic scholars (especially of the Shia schools) who believe that it is they, not the family, who should administer the ‘honour killing’. But this is more of a dispute over power, not substance…
Please, keep the above in mind as you watch the following video, which supplies the relevant quotes from Sharia to support the above statements:
This story is very important and needs to be told.
As someone who had escaped from a totalitarian system – not as horrific as North Korea’s, but a totalitarian system nonetheless, I have some appreciation of the difficulties involved, both in the mechanics of the escape and in the rehabilitation afterwards.
I am 45 years old now – and escaped when I was 13.
As escape stories go, mine was less dreadful than most.
Yet, I still wake up in panick attacks, with what are termed ‘escapee dreams’, and what some modern MDs might term ‘post-traumatic stress’…
So, I can readily imagine and empathise with the difficulties some of these people face!
Please, spread the story – like the video says: information is power!!!
I have to admit that I am intrigued by some of the ideas proposed by the anarcho-capitalists.
And, I do understand how it would work – for civilized people who would agree on impartial third party conflict resolution and all that. I get it…
What I don’t understand is how it would function if the two parties in conflict did not agree on their conflict moderator – or if one of the parties never agreed to the process at all…how could conflicts be resolved then?
Well, well, well.
The chickens have come home to roost.
Or something like that!
It seems like the vast majority of the media is jubilant over Omar Khadr’s return to Canada – in stark contrast to the polls of actual Canadian people, the vast majority of whom opposed his repatriation. He killed an American medic, he was sentenced in America – why should Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for his jail time and rehabilitation?
And the cost of rehabilitation will be high!
Not counting the ten million he is suing Canada for, that is…
Because this 5 times war criminal is unrepentant and more militant than ever. He is a racist, misogynistic bigot who is hell-bent on using any means available to him – including violence and propaganda – to wage jihad against us, non-Muslims.
We know this because he openly says so.
No, not to the media and the useful idiots from the consular office – but he says it nonetheless.
He boasts of having killed Americans.
He says his best days were when he was manufacturing roadside bombs and planting them, to blow up our and allied military personnel.
And he is proud of having cold-bloodedly murdered a medic – not in the heat of a battle, but while the unarmed medic was attempting to render him medical assistance!
Forget the lie so often repeated in the media that he is a ‘child soldier’ – he is not. Not according to either the spirit or the letter of the law, which is very specific in its definition of the legal term ‘child soldier’. But I have ranted on that in the past…
What is important now is how we will deal with this hardened terrorist in our midst: will we pretend that he is just another petty criminal who can be rehabilitated through education, or will we recognize the clear and present danger he poses to us all?
He had, after all, committed treason by taking up arms against our and allied forces.
It’s right there, in our criminal code.
The only reasonable course of action is for him to be charged and tried under that law because if the laws are not applied equally to everyone, the very foundation of our society will be undermined.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 