Labels

Monday, March 13, 2017

Terrorism: Home and Away

I cannot claim to have seen any of the 'new' terrorism in Tasmania - it will come, no doubt -  but there has always been the 'old' sort. Not that the Government acknowledges either sort. We are constantly fed the 'Religion of Peace', or 'Lone Wolf', or 'Mentally ill' to deny the reality of murderous mulsims rampaging, threatening and actually killing.  Even... gosh.... beating their wives. 

At least the gummunt cowards have not funded taxpayer millions into adverts to tell Muslims they should not beat their wives. 

They have though for non-moslems. For that we get regularly bombed with ads telling us how awful non-muslim men are and that we ordinary anglo-ozzies are wholly responsible for ladies not being able to walk the streets safely. Or stay at home for that matter.

A bit of compare and contrast happened in the Tavern this week. First we had the spectacle of muslim terrorists living off the taxpayer; and hot on its heels we were presented with the home-grown domestic terrorists we all know and love so well. We cannot, it seems, lay the blame for the one at the feet of moslems, nor the other at the daintier feet of westen wimmin. We must deny instead and blame the victims.

Every mendacious excuse that can be thought up is trotted out whenever a Muslim mob wreaks havoc. Moslems would not be so angry and vicious, it seems, if we were not so 'Islamophobic'.  We are all bigots and that's why they are vicious and revolting. And of course men are patriarchal monsters oppressing women all the time with misogyny, which is why women are so vicious and revolting.


Meanwhile the taxpayers (majority being chaps, of course) provide support for both mobs. Giulio Meotti was first on his feet.
Jihadis Living on Support Payments from the Europe They Vowed to Destroy

Al Harith's story - below- reveals the depth of one of Europe's biggest scandals: the jihadis' use of European cradle-to-grave entitlements to fund their "holy war".
Europe gave them everything: jobs, homes, public assistance, unemployment benefits, relief payments, child benefits, disability payments, cash support. These Muslim extremists, however, do not see this "Dependistan", as Mark Steyn called the welfare state, as a sign of generosity, but of weakness. They understand that Europe is ready to be destroyed.
Filled with religious certainty and ideological hatred for the West, not required to assimilate to Europe's values and norms, many of European Muslims seem to feel as if they are destined to devour an exhausted civilization.

Public policy goals instead need to be to move people off welfare -- shown to be basically a disincentive to looking for work -- and toward personal responsibility. There need to be legal limits on the uses to which welfare funds can be put -- for example, welfare funds should not to be used for purchasing illegal drugs, gambling, terrorism or, as there is no free speech in Europe anyway, for promoting terrorism. One could create and fine-tune such a list. Disregarding the limitations could result in losing benefits. This would help fight the ghettoization and Islamization of Europe's Muslims. The cycle of welfare and jihad needs to be stopped.
Four years ago, the British liberal newspaper, The Guardian, ran a story about the "survivors of Guantanamo", the "victims of America's 'icon of lawlessness'", "Britain's survivors of the detention centre that has been called the 'gulag of our times'". The article featured a photograph of Jamal al Harith.
Al Harith, born Ronald Fiddler, a Christian convert to Islam, returned to Manchester from detention at Guantanamo Bay thanks to activism of David Blunkett, Home Secretary of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. Al Harith was immediately welcomed in England as a hero, the innocent victim of the unjust "war on terror" after September 11. The Mirror and ITV gave him £60,000 ($73,000) for an exclusive interview about his experience at Guantanamo.
Al Harith was also compensated with one million pounds by the British authorities. The victim of the "gulag of our times" bought a very nice house with the taxpayers' cash.

A few weeks ago, al Harith made his last "journey": he was blown up in Mosul, Iraq, on behalf of the Islamic State. Al Harith had also been recruited by the non-governmental organization "CAGE" (formerly known as "Cageprisoners") as part of its testimony advocating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Celebrities such as Vanessa Redgrave, Victoria Brittain, Peter Oborne and Sadiq Khan appeared at CAGE's fundraising events. The NGO has been funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, a fund created by the chocolate magnate, and by the Roddick Foundation, the charity of Anita Roddick. Al Harith was also invited to the Council of Europe, to give testimony against retaining Guantanamo.
Al Harith's story reveals the depth of one of Europe's biggest scandals: the jihadis' use of European cradle-to-grave entitlements to fund their "holy war". Europe gave them everything: jobs, homes, public assistance, unemployment benefits, relief payments, child benefits, disability payments, cash support. These Muslim extremists, however, do not see this "Dependistan", as Mark Steyn called the welfare state, as a sign of generosity, but of weakness. They understand that Europe is ready to be destroyed. They have no respect for it. From Marseille to Malmรถ, many Muslim children have been raised to despise the societies that have made them so comfortable. Most Islamists in Europe are now living on support payments from the nations they had vowed to destroy.
A few days ago, the Danish press revealed that the Danish government has been paying sickness and disability benefits to Muslim extremists fighting in Syria for the Islamic State. "It is a huge scandal that we disburse money from the welfare fund in Denmark for people who go to Syria," said Employment Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. The terrorists who struck Paris and Brussels have also used the generous British welfare system to fund their jihad. It is emerging from a trial in the UK that Mohamed Abrini, known as "the man with the hat" after the deadly attack at Brussels airport, received £3,000 in benefits before flying to Paris and disappearing.
It is not the first time that the role of the welfare state emerges in the Islamic infrastructure of terror:
The family of Omar Abdel Hamid el Hussein, the terrorist behind the attack in Copenhagen in February 2015, which killed two people, received money from Danish social programs.
British Islamist Anjem Choudary, convicted of encouraging people to join the Islamic State, urged the faithful to leave work and to seek unemployment benefits to devote full-time to war against the "infidels". Choudary himself pocketed £25,000 a year in benefits.
In Germany, when the newspaper Bild ran an analysis of the 450 German jihadists fighting in Syria, it found that more than 20% of them have received benefits from the German state.

In the Netherlands, a jihadist named Khalid Abdurahman appeared in a video of the Islamic State in front of five heads just cut off. The Dutch newspaper Volkskrant revealed that he had been declared "unfit for work" and was paid for a treatment of claustrophobia.
Europe's welfare system has created a cultural toxin for many in a sullen, unproductive Muslim underclass who live in the segregated enclaves such as the banlieues of Paris or "Londonistan". Filled with religious certainty and ideological hatred for the West, not required to assimilate to Europe's values and norms, certain of these European Muslims seem to feel as if they are destined to devour an exhausted civilization.
Muhammad Shamsuddin, a 39-year-old London-based Islamist, was featured in a documentary called "The Jihadis Next Door." Shamsuddin, a divorced father of five who lives on state handouts and claims he cannot work because he has "chronic fatigue syndrome," was filmed preaching hate against non-Muslims on British streets. (Image source: Channel 4 video screenshot)

Public policy goals instead need to be to move people off welfare -- shown to be basically a disincentive to looking for work -- except in extraordinary cases, and toward personal responsibility. There need to be legal limits on the uses to which welfare funds can be put -- for example, welfare funds should not to be used for purchasing illegal drugs, for gambling, for terrorism or, as there is no free speech in Europe anyway, for promoting terrorism. One could create and fine-tune such a list. Disregarding the limitations could result in losing the benefits. Measures such as that would will help fight against the ghettoization and Islamization of Europe's Muslims.
Who is winning here? Democracy or Islamic extremism? The cycle of welfare and jihad needs to be stopped. Now.
The emasculated menfolk in the west are hardly likely to stand up to them, unfortunately. Most of the men in Government and public services are cowed into the most appalling misandry, blaming ordinary men for a host of 'crimes' against women.  The moslem men know this all too well.

In the west men are blamed for all sorts of things - for which most are completely innocent. False accusation is rife. Police hold to the mantra that a complaining woman 'must be believed'.  The women know this all too well too, and many do not hesitate to inflict violence on men.  

This is denied, of course.


Only men are violent. 


The stick that the moslem fellow is holding above is supposedly the same stick that men traditionally used. The 'Rule of Thumb' according to feminist 'knowledge/truth' was about the thickness of the stick. 



Lizette Borreli held forth in the bar about women's violence; a subject most men know all too much about. Although it is denied of course.
Domestic Violence Against Men: 
Women More Likely To Be 'Intimate Terrorists' With Controlling Behaviour In Relationships

 Science debunks the "women are the gentler sex" myth, finding they are more likely to be "intimate terrorists," or hit their male partners in relationships.
Relationships can be an emotional rollercoaster. Throughout the ride, men and women can be everything from loving and nurturing, to sometimes verbally and even physically abusive during fights. While aggression in heterosexual relationships is believed to stem from men, a recent study presented on June 25 at a symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow, found .. 
women are more likely to be “intimate terrorists,” 
or physically aggressive to their partners than men.

Michael P. Johnson, an American sociologist coined the term “intimate terrorism,” or batterers or abusers, in the 1990s to define an extreme form of controlling relationship behavior involving threats, intimidation, and violence. Men were almost always responsible for these heinous acts. 
This belief is further supported by statistics highlighting nearly three in 10 women (29 percent), and one in 10 men (10 percent) in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner, affecting some form of their functioning, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To observe the dynamic and prevalence of intimate partner violence of men and women in heterosexual relationships, Dr. Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire, conducted a survey collecting data from a large cohort of students. More than 1,000 students — 706 women and 398 men with an average age of 24 — responded to the questionnaires. The students were asked about their physical aggression and controlling behavior to partners, and to same-sex others, including friends.
The findings revealed just as many women as men could also be classed as abusive, coupled with controlling behavior with serious levels of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. 
Women were more likely to verbally and physically aggressive to their partners than men. “This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men. 
“It wasn’t just pushing and shoving,” said Bates, Medical Xpress reported. Some of the survey respondents circled boxes for things like beating up, kicking, and even threatening to use a weapon.


However, when it came to terms of high levels of control and aggression, there was no difference between men and women. 
There was a higher prevalence of controlling behavior seen in women than men, which was found to significantly predict physical aggression in both sexes. 
In other words, the more controlling behavior a woman displayed, the more likely she would an “intimate terrorist,” or physically aggressive to her partner.
"This was an interesting finding. Previous studies have sought to explain male violence towards women as rising from patriarchal values, which motivate men to seek to control women's behavior, using violence if necessary,” Bates said. This suggests IPV may not be motivated by patriarchal values, and should be further studied with other forms of aggression. The stereotypical popular view, although still dominant, is being challenged by research over the last ten to 15 years, shedding light on male domestic violence.

Mark Brooks, chair of the ManKind Initiative in the U.K., which offers support for male victims of domestic violence, believes Bates’ study is “game changing.” “At the charity we're not surprised at the findings, because of the type of calls we get to our helpline every day,” Brooks told The Telegraph. “What concerns us still is the lack of awareness and services available to support those men suffering in this way.”
It is no surprise that the media and government in the U.S. and throughout other parts of the world, people focus most attention on the female victims of domestic violence and, consequently, men are the overlooked victims of domestic violence. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, men and boys are less likely to report the violence and seek services due to several challenges such as the stigma of being a male victim. Sixteen percent of adult men who report being raped or physically assaulted are victims of a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.
Source: Bates E et al. Women more likely to be aggressive than men in relationships. British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow.
We have an entire police department especially for 'male' domestic violence in Tasmania. None for female. Here we are in denial.

When the moslem hordes frind Tasmania on their maps, we can expect to see some of the mayhem on our streets such as Melbourne suffers.

Meanwhile men will continue to suffer at home.

Its enough to drive a chap to drink.

Pax




No comments:

Post a Comment

Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..