Header image  
Culture, politics, science, philosophy  
 

 

Thinking matters
 

Culture, politics, science, philosophy.

General manifesto ***** Immigration manifesto
The deep Crisis of the West
Permalinks


Threatened reporters in Gaza

19.08.2014. The Foreign Press Association is protesting “in the strongest terms the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in Gaza over the past month." For more background on this, see:

 


There is no end to their atrocities

Christian child waiting to be killed by IS (downloaded from Catholic Online).

17.08.2014 (updated 22.08.2014). Sunni tribesmen marched into desert, made to kneel and shot in the head. Tribe made deal with IS (a.k.a. ISIS or ISIL) to be left alone but agreement collapsed. Shocking close-up photos of splattered brains and severed heads released. 'Punishment for those who fight Allah and his Messenger is to crucify or cut off hands and feet'. From the article Lined up and executed, their severed heads put on display as a warning to others: Horrific new photographs of ISIS atrocities:

Up to 500 prisoners from the minority Yazidi faith are said to have been killed by ‘death squads’ of jihadi gunmen in recent days.

Some 40 Yazidi children are reported to be among the dead, after being driven from their homes by the brutal Islamist militant offensive in northern Iraq.

Chilling images of the victims have now emerged, some released by the group’s expertly managed propaganda machine.

Advancing Islamic State fighters have filmed themselves massacring prisoners, some of whom have been crucified or beheaded. Pictures show armed fighters, appearing to laugh over slumped bodies of dead civilians, who had been lined up and shot in the head and back.

‘The punishment of those who fight Allah and his Messenger and spread mischief on earth is to kill or crucify or cut off their hands and feet,’ the militant group declared.

There were also reports of children being beheaded, crucifixions and amputations. One said trapped Yazidi women were being raped while their husbands were slaughtered.

For photographic evidence and more text, see The Daily Mail.

See also:

  • The killings have begun. The world does the least it can do. Islamic State terrorists have begun their promised killing of Christians in Mosul, and they have started with the children. According to a report via CNN, a Chaldean-American businessman has said that killings have started in Mosul and children's heads are being erected on poles in a city park.
  • Our generational struggle against a poisonous ideology. Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron warns of terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean if Islamic State succeeds.
  • How Dissimulation about Islam is Fuelling Genocide in the Middle East. Parents are throwing their children to their deaths off the mountain rather than see them die of thirst or be taken into slavery by IS. The IS jihadis are killing the men they capture. In one recent incident 1500 men were executed in front of their wives and families. In another incident 13 Yazidi men who refused to convert to Islam had their eyes plucked out, were doused with gasoline and burned alive. When the men are killed, captured women and children are enslaved to be used for sex, deployed as human shields in battle zones, or sold to be used and abused as their new owners see fit. [...] These events ought to be sobering to the West, not least because thousands of the IS jihadis were raised and bred in the mosques of Europe, North America and Australia, not to mention the madrassas of nations such as Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Having been formed by the theology of radical Islam in their home societies, would-be jihadis are flocking to Syria and Iraq where they seek victory or martyrdom, killing and raping as they go. Why is this so? How did the Arab Spring, hailed by so many armchair western commentators as the next best thing for the Middle East, blossom bright red into a torrent of blood? Part of the answer is that the West is in the grip of theological illiteracy. It has stubbornly refused to grasp the implications of a global Islamic revival which has been gaining steam for the best part of a century. The Islamic Movement looks back to the glory days of conquest as Islam's finest hour, and seeks to revive Islamic supremacy through jihad and sacrifice. It longs for a truly Islamic state – the caliphate reborn – and considers jihad to be the God-given means to usher it in. This worldview was promoted in compelling, visionary terms by Indian scholar Abul A'la Maududi, whose writings continue to be widely disseminated by Islamic bookshops and mosques across the West. Mark Durie.

 


Legal fights over the significance of race and ethnicity

13.08.2014. The genuine ground for recognising indigenous peoples—that doing so would establish historical truth about the country’s origins—also applies to British settlement and the original Anglo nation which gave Australia its name. Thus writes Frank Salter in his article Indigenous Recognition’s Misguided Case in Quadrant Magazine:

When I first read of the proposal to recognise indigenous Australians in the Constitution, I thought: it’s about time. Recognition is the honest and empathic thing to do. If I were of indigenous descent, knowing that my country had been colonised and my people reduced from sole occupants to a small and marginalised minority, I would want my people recognised in a form that would build their pride and gain respect from other Australians. In addition the status brought by constitutional recognition would be adaptive in the biological sense of group survival. Aborigines are related genetically to one another like first cousins compared to White Australians[1] and I know that in their position I would have fraternal feelings towards ethnic kin due to shared culture and ancestry.

Australia’s First Peoples—Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders—have a claim to recognition in the Constitution second only to Australia’s historic nation, the continent-wide community of sentiment and shared culture, memories and homeland that awakened in the second half of the nineteenth century. That nation by now includes many people of indigenous descent and the descendants of immigrants from around the world. Like all ethnic families indigenous peoples have a vital interest in continuity and status. I understand their wish to place that interest beyond the vagaries of ideological fashion. It is right and reasonable for citizens to pursue their interests when those do not conflict with vital national interests. Like many Australians I respect indigenous aspiration for recognition and fair treatment.

Then I read the recommended changes to the referendum. These are in the Report of the Expert Panel appointed by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The changes are unacceptable, even if placed in the Constitution’s preamble, primarily because they fail to recognise the origins of the Australian nation. The amendments would symbolically, and legally if the panel had their way, alienate the nation from its homeland. This flaw is compounded by poor arguments. Contrary to the panel’s advice, constitutional recognition will not close the gap in indigenous health, criminality and employment. The genuine ground for recognising indigenous peoples—that doing so would establish historical truth about the country’s origins—also applies to British settlement and the original Anglo nation which gave Australia its name.

The Expert Panel’s Report is a sinister document. It is biased ideologically and ethnically against the traditional Australian nation. Its analysis is flawed by the same ideological distortions and intolerance that have plagued multiculturalism since its inception. It contains psychological and legal traps which if allowed into the Constitution will be sources of endless demands, litigation and propaganda. Social cohesion would be undermined.

This essay has three parts, which will be published in this and subsequent editions. The first summarises the Report’s recommendations and their anti-national bias, the cause of which appears to be irrationality produced by the long-running series of culture wars over race and ethnicity. Two subjects afflicted by irrationality are the causes of Aboriginal disability and the meaning of nationhood.

The second part continues to discuss irrational social analysis, looking at UN influence and the race concept. The two themes intersect in Ashley Montagu, a radical anthropologist given prominence in the Report. An examination of Montagu illuminates the culture war over ethnicity.

The third and final part of this essay begins by describing how the Expert Panel was ethnically biased, despite being appointed by an avowedly multiculturalist government. I outline fair principles by which national and indigenous origins might be recognised in appropriate relation to one another in the Constitution. By failing to recognise the historic nation, the Report falls short of these principles and should be opposed.

Read the entire article in Quadrant Online. See also:

  • The Misguided Case for Indigenous Recognition in the Constitution (Part II). The Expert Panel’s irrationality is compounded by its slavish devotion to the United Nations, an organisation compromised by cultural Marxism from its early days. The Report points out that the Whitlam government ratified the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) and that signatories are obliged to legislate accordingly. However, it does not report that in signing the Convention, the Whitlam government regretted that it could not criminalise all the acts covered by Article 4(a) of the Convention, such as expressing opinions likely to promote racial discrimination, but undertook to do so “at the first suitable moment”. Neither does the Report acknowledge the obvious threat this article poses to civil liberties. Although the panel recommended a constitutional prohibition only of government discrimination, in its discussion it implied that individual discrimination should be suppressed, again based on the UN: “The Charter of the United Nations … provides a clear foundation for the international prohibition of racial discrimination.” The Report respectfully cites several UN documents, including the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The Expert Panel sought out principles it considered authoritative—and sometimes mandatory due to treaty obligations—as guides and spurs to recognising indigenous peoples in the Constitution.
  • The Misguided Case for Indigenous Recognition (Part III).

Frank Salter is an Australian urban anthropologist and ethologist who studies organisations and society using the methods and concepts of behavioural biology.

 


Canada will not accept white refugees

11.07.2014. The South African man who sought refuge in Canada by saying he feared persecution from blacks, has lost his latest bid to remain in that country, writes Bheki Mbanjwa in his article Canada boots out SA’s ‘white refugee’:

The Canadian Federal Court has upheld the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board which refused to grant Brandon Huntley refugee status.

He had claimed he could not return to South Africa as whites were “targeted, attacked and killed because of their skin colour”. He also said he did not trust the South African judiciary and that legislation only “theoretically” provided recourse for addressing persecution, hence his application for refugee status.

Judge Catherine Kane ruled this week that refugee protection is considered a substitute protection in the event of a country failing to provide protection and that Huntley had failed to provide evidence that he would not get such protection in his home country.

[...]

In his original application, made in April 2008, Huntley had claimed that:

“In 2000, he received delayed medical treatment (stitches and x-rays) in favour of black patients at a hospital where all the staff were black;

“He applied to the Home Office for a passport and had to return three days in a row to submit his passport application because black citizens were permitted to go ahead of him in line;

“He was required to submit additional documentation not required of black applicants when making his application for his work permit for Canada;

“He was unable to get a job in South Africa due to affirmative action;

“He was assaulted and stabbed at least six times since he was a teenager by black South Africans because of his race. During these incidents, he was subjected to racial slurs;

“He is aware of other white South Africans who have been “hijacked” and/or assaulted;

“Members of the (ANC) chanted phrases such as “Kill the whites”; and,

“Members of his family in Roodeport have hired a security company to follow them if they have to drive at night.”

He had however never reported any of the alleged crimes against him to the police.

[...]

Huntley took that decision on appeal, claiming the board had ignored evidence of racism and persecution of whites. He also submitted to the court that the board failed to consider his “fears of the president and other political leaders who chant and sing songs inciting violence against white people”.

He also claimed he feared reprisals after his application for refugee status attracted a lot of media attention. He said he “believes he would be flagged at the airport upon arrival”.

Read the entire story in IOL News.

 



Home

Permalinks to older articles

 


 

Search HonestThinking

 


Norsk stoff - Norwegian material

Norske og skandinaviske lesere vil kunne finne stoff på norsk her.

 


 

HonestThinking is dedicated and committed to the art of thinking honestly. Yet honest thinking is not the same as true thinking, for it is possible to think honestly, but be mistaken. For the same reason, honest thinking is not identical with objective thinking either. Honest thinking is striving to get things right. This involves being truthful about whatever one publishes, but just as importantly, it involves an uncompromising dedication never to suppress relevant data, even when data collides with dearly held prejudices. Such an approach may sometimes cause hurtful revisions in one’s belief system. That’s what HonestThinking is all about! Read the entire manifesto.



Provoked or enthusiastic?

Please send e-mail to postmaster at honestThinking.org (replacing ' at ' with '@') if you would like to tip us about a web resource that we should link to, or if you wish to submit an article for publication here. Quality contributions are welcome from anyone.

 



 

The current European immigration and integration policy is profoundly disrespectful of both Muslims and Islam, because it is built on the tacit assumption that the Muslims will become like us. One claims to have respect for Islam and for Muslims, but one also expects Muslims to give up their orthodox faith when they come here. At the same time one is assuming that Islam will be reformed and modernized as soon as the Muslims become integrated and understand and appreciate how superior our Western culture is compared to their own. This is cultural shauvinism and arrogance indeed! The unspoken premise for this scenario is that Western socities are superior to Islam. Read more.

 


 

 

Human rights and democracy are under pressure. One threat comes from the Western world, in the form of lack of or dishonest thinking. There exists a peculiar Western "tolerance" which is so "tolerant" that it even tolerates totalitarian or anti-democratic ideologies. A tacit assumption underlying such an attitude is that all cultures, world views, and religions are really equally good. As a consequence of this assumption one is cut off from the possibility of critically examining the above mentioned ideologies. Read more.