Sunday, October 25, 2015

A Personal Note on Blog Benefits and Policy

by Peter Hyatt


A word to all regarding this blog, as well as commenting policy, article submissions and transcripts for analysis.

First, regarding transcripts for analysis:

Readers should feel free to post transcripts, especially of videos, for analysis.  I do not have the time to tackle them all, but readers with experience love to chime in and get involved.

Please be aware that posting a video link is not likely to bring much in terms of analysis:  a 4 minute video clip may translate to 2 hours of transcription.  If you are serious in wanting an opinion, you must take the time to transcribe, and accept the responsibility of error remembering that an entire analysis can turn on a single mistakenly typed word.

Be cautious!

Secondly, regarding requests for analysis...

Article or Topic Submissions

Simply begin your comment with "OT" which alerts the reader to "Off Topic" news story.  John McGowen is generous with his time and often points out interesting articles that readers may wish to view its statements.


Please keep in mind:  The purpose of these have to do with Statement Analysis, which is why John posts them, and this relation may be either that the articles have statements which the analysis will be interesting or the article has follow up information to a story we have already covered.

Simply make a note of this in the comment section to begin the comment.

Do not be offended that most all readers will be analyzing your comments:  it is what we do.  When agenda driven comments arise, people see it for what it is.  If an issue is bothering you, state it plainly, and ask questions.

Thirdly, commenting policy, errors, and timeliness.

We have up to 4 volunteers at any given time who delete comments.  It is not easy work and it is especially something that has to be rotated, not due to volume, but content.

I apologize to readers who had to read taunting or insulting replies prior to deletion.  It is most unpleasant to read something like this, which I understand, and we do get to them, eventually. The comments run in the hundreds per day, and whenever there is a delay, there is something unpleasant and insulting there.

Google spam does eventually catch up to the influx of ads, propaganda, and general scams (though I am not as concerned about readers getting scammed here, as other blogs may).

Here are some things to consider:

  Hyatt Analysis is now full time, with the hopes of moving from a volunteer staff to full time staff, including analysts.  There is a great need for this work, well beyond law enforcement.

The blog helps the business as it causes intelligent law enforcement to contact me for training or seminars.

Analysis here causes Human Resources to contact us, as well as attorneys, business professionals, counselor, journalists, and, overall, smart people who know lie detection is not easy, and that few are good at it.  We have done not only criminal analysis but:

Litigation Analysis
Hiring Analysis with screening for violence, agenda, deception and personality 
Investment Analysis including fraudulent claims 
Psychological Profiling (interview preparation) 

From here, investigators, criminal and civil, as well as business and social service professionals, get formal training, deep and challenging, and make strong impacts in their careers, for both the public, and for their businesses.  The need, perhaps, for discernment, has never been higher.

It is  troubling to read someone take principle and falsely apply it to fit their agenda.  This blog bears  the business name and we would not want someone to read it and say, "this must be foolish!" and compare it to something like 'backwards' reading, or greatly exaggerated  claims of instantaneous face reading.  Lie Detection is hard work and 101 books and articles are interesting, but will end up in error the first time the analyst is faced with a complexity, such as in the case of sexual abuse, which I will touch upon below.  The "Lie to Me" TV show did not help the cause either, and reminds me of the Lassie TV show (I own the DVD) where Timmy says,

"What's that Lassie, boy?  Mom is at the house and the barn is on fire and Dad is busy eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich unawares that his wife is about to be burnt to death?" all from just a bark.

Lie To Me:  "See that raised eye brow, Senator?  That tells me that you cheated on your wife, took a bribe from the company, and are willing to sell your country's military security for campaign contributions!"

In deed.


How 'psychic' must one be to predict that a senator would have a girl friend, take bribes, and solicit campaign contributions in exchange for military secrets?

Analysis is hard work.

I work with departments and companies around the country and stand on the analysis. 

When one asserts, but does not prove, I ask the volunteers to delete it.  There are plenty of places to go to openly assert an Elvis sighting, but not here.

When one deliberately misuses principle to further agenda, I ask that it be deleted.

When a comment begins with anything like, "You will probably delete this...", it gets deleted.  It's a time saver. 

When one insults another, it gets deleted, as does profanity, racism (the hatred of a race), or those who make hate personal; it is one thing to detest an ideology and another to have personal hatred without a cause.  If someone posts hatred of a person and it is justified (a murderer's victim), it is not deleted. 

Of the past year, hatred towards police has increased and these get deleted too. The usual protocol of respect is standard.  

Disagreements = Growth 

I've not liked all of my conclusions 
Disagreements are useful.  It allows for dialog and especially, given the nature of the blog, it allows for learning.  We can re-visit the application of principle for error.

In the recent posting of a letter about migrants in Germany (English being 2nd language):  Should someone say, "I actually think this letter is a fraud and here is why..." it opens for discussion and is good.  These comments stay and allow for back and forth.

A good example of disagreements = growth is the volume of criticism I received about the DeOrr case.

This criticism was not in the form of direct attacks, but in the relentless posting of the statements and the 'de facto' demand for in depth analysis; rather than 'phoning it in' due to busy scheduling.

I responded to this criticism, though it took hours, because it is a case readers demanded be done, and I respect that.  I was dissatisfied with my own work, not that it was incorrect, but that it was superficial  and my conclusion was lacking conviction. Disagreement spurred me on.  

Politics. 

I understand that a supporter of a particular politician may not be pleased, for example, when I analyze a statement.  Best to challenge the analysis rather than attempt to assign motive.  

Whoever is in the news more often will have more transcripts, thus more analysis.


Fake Hate

Here is a topic that brings out rage and where comment moderation falls behind due to volume.  When the truth is discovered, most readers enjoy this, the agenda driven do not.  Please be patient.  

Controvery 

Regular readers are familiar with my work with rape victims and victims of Domestic Violence, which are, overwhelmingly, female. The imbalance in number means more sample of which to quantify for analysis later.  I teach an entire separate chapter on the language of women who were sexually assaulted in childhood, and I do this for one purposeful reason:

I do it simply because an adult female victim of childhood sexual abuse will use phrases that appear deceptive and investigators must not only be aware of this, but ask specific questions in order to uncover if the alleged victim is using these phrases due to a form of disassociation in her language.  This includes PTSD like symptoms as well as the inability to describe what happened.

This training is crucial to get to the truth.  True enough, male victims are in much lesser numbers, and speak differently than female victims, and much more research is necessary.  Which brings me to my next point on Data Building coming up.

Holocaust Denial

Each week we learn of, on average, 500 people, world wide, murdered due to the specific ideology of supremacy taught from the Koran and the life of Mohammad.  The slaughter has increased dramatically since the "Arab Spring" took place.  

What is different about these reports, current, than past reports is that, almost daily, actual video of these murders is posted online. It is all but impossible for it to not emotionally impact the viewer.  

"Islamophobia" is the term used to dismiss this slaughter, which is on the increase and all here will not tolerate denial.  

Islam is an ideology of supremacy which must, psychologically,  result in violence.  It is not that we have a few psychopaths around the world killing for no cause.  We have that.

We have an ideology that is far worse than anything the Nazis dreamed of, and specifically calls for the deaths of:

Jews
Christians
Secular Muslims
Muslims who have left Islam 
Homosexuals

and it prescribes draconian punishments against criminals and it unequivocally opposes the civil rights of women.

Supremacy itself, leads to violence as it strengthens a corporate victim status.  If someone has ore than me, the supreme one, it must be due to fraud, therefore, the one who feels slighted  must respond.

The Koran teaches that women are worth only 50% of the man, and that a husband should use physical violence to bring her to obedience.  The devaluation of woman in an entire ideology has led to violent suppression consistently.  We do that which we believe. 

How many people die, each month, due to obedience to the koran?

On average, about 2,000.

This excludes actual combat casualties.  This is why it is said that Islam is the only religion in the world that increases violence when its followers become devout.  It is a religion of "coercion", whereas the other world religions are religions of "persuasion" that use reason, charity, and mercy to gain followers. 

It is criminal action, in the name of religion, on a scale the world has never seen, including Nazi Germany, which only lasted 15 years.  This has been an insulated criminal holocaust for 1400 years. 

Before the 2008 election, there were few deniers of the Islamic atrocities but it has become "in vogue" to deny this, with shout downs of "Islamophobia" and Europe is suffering in what is becoming a new anti-semeticism that far exceeds the scope of Nazis.

The Rape Epidemic in Sweden, even when viewed through the deliberate deceptive techniques used on the statistics, makes Sweden the most dangerous place in the world for women, outside of a small country in Africa.  If you "straighten" out the statistics, it may be the single most dangerous place for a woman.  See:  Sweden: Rape Capital At Gatestone for more information. 

The supremacist ideology, criminally, is not something Americans understand, even in the slightest.

As I read, each day, of the deaths all around the world, including the secular Muslims, I am appalled.

In America, we had holocaust deniers in the late 1930's, in much larger number than we do today.  Today, the holocaust denier is looked at as foolish, agenda driven anti-semites.  Yet, today, the murders committed by Islamic supremacists is being denied.  These  comments will be deleted.  It is just too horrific to read of these accounts, see the actual videos, and hear the cries of the oppressed only to read someone denying the bloodshed.

About once a week, a homosexual is murdered and thrown from a roof with a video given as proof.  It is unbearable to watch and must not be denied. 

Every day, a woman is murdered in an "honor killing", marrying a "kaffir", or leaving the Islam religion, just as every day violent protests include, "carbecues"  in Sweden, and women who are raped not only do not receive justice, but are blamed for the rape.  Statements of judges, prosecutors and even the public, are posted for analysis, and at times, shocking, in their blaming of the victim. 

A new psychological term is being heard, called the Rotherdam Effect, where police, so fearful of being called "racist", are turning their backs to those who are raping children, pedophilia, grooming, and so on, which only empowers those who believe themselves superior.

This is where police are fearful of making inquiry or arrest due to being labeled an unpopular term.  

It impacts the UK just as it impacts the innocent mother in an apartment in Baltimore, who can no longer leave her home at night for fear of violence, while police fear accusation of "racism" if they attempt to effect an arrest.  

Europeans are so fearful of this that they are forced to make their own reports, with Germany, for instance, having its corporate media deliberately withhold brutal facts of which citizens needed in order to keep their women and children safe.  Interviews with displaced citizens show, even in second language, the "coal in the mouth" that was popular in the 30's and 40's, fearful to speak the truth.  

The techniques of European corporate (main stream) media are deceptive, and will continue to be exposed through analysis.  

This is a new wave of crime of which deception exists and is so powerful that I have begun a series of articles on it, in a separate blog so that it can be discussed in depth, for interested readers.  

The last point is the most exciting of them all, and allows me, and those who work with Hyatt Analysis, to express gratitude to readers:   

Data Building 

First, is the challenge of analysis. 


Analysis of a public case is published.  No cases with law enforcement are published, and where we work on a case that is in the news, the news story is not published here.  The integrity of the case is paramount.  

When a case is in the news and analysis is published, consider that the actual investigators are reading the analysis.  

Also reading are experts within their fields, some with decades of experience. 

This puts the analysis under a crucible of testing.  

On several cases, actual case investigators disagreed with the analysis. Since they were the ones who knew the case details and the analysis dealt only with words, the analysis conclusion is put to the extreme test.  

This is to produce excellence.  

The analysis, which stayed strictly within principle, and avoided speculation, including the emotional temptation ("straight face test" issues) to rush to judgement, proved to be accurate, in the end, either by confession or polygraph.  Since investigators had the analysis on one hand, but detailed case elements, including forensics on the other, you may well imagine how the investigators consider analysis today, including some who have gone on to training.  In only one case did an investigator "dig in his heels" and refused to budge, though the warning of re-offense was in the conclusion of the analysis and the statement of the child tested true. The cleared offender went on to re-offend. 

Having analysis publicly open to scrutiny by professionals and intelligencia nationwide (and even world wide) is to produce excellence. Some of you have recognized that "anonymous comments" were head and shoulders above the status of amateur and openly opined.  

I have seen the principles collected and articulated from LSI become the basis for all schools of "Statement Analysis", which is like "math", while the application of the principles can vary widely.


Last week, I was interviewed by an NBC  affiliate  KWES TV, from Texas, along with Clint Dunn, the father of murdered 13 year old, Hailey Dunn, journalist Erica Morse, and interviewer, anchor Victor Lopez.  Lopez graciously allowed me to comment on "batting 1.000 due to conservative and diligent conclusions" rather than rushing to conclusion.  This ahead of a book I hope investigators will find useful, as it highlights just how much information is released, even when a suspect appears on television. 

The greater the scrutiny, the greater the potential for excellence.  

Next, this blog represents a marvelous opportunity to gather data.

We are  grateful for the contributions of readership here in ways that the public may not recognize.  

With the two IP addresses, we have had more than 12 million page views, and thousand and thousands of useful comments, including challenges, and input from experts. Besides "iron sharpening iron, it has done something else for us:

It is building data that is invaluable, including "expected" versus "unexpected", which, alone, increases the breadth of a reference point for the English language, post 2000 living.  (Language shifts in case ye hath not recognized its wont).   

We are ("we", includes readership) forever learning from commentators, not simply things I have missed (this is always a blessing) but we are able to study language and compile our own statistics for eventual publication, on how people respond, in everything from counting words, to pronouns, to which topics elicit which responses

 It is invaluable for me to be able to say, "in this scenario, 20% will respond with..." which can only be accurate when it is large scale (whatever that means) and I am privileged, due to the internet's ease of this work, to not only gather statements from around the world, but reactions as we build a data base of statements of our own.  

Although I am grateful for the compilation of statistics from other analysis websites, and have found, for example, LSI's statistics to be accurate, it is exciting to continue this work into the next decades.

My hope is to continue to contribute to the education of those who's work is to discern deception from truth, while assisting the general public in their own dealings with deception and appreciate the criticism, feedback and the opportunity for learning that so many of your comments afford.

Thank you,

Peter Hyatt

191 comments:

elf said...

Thank you for all you do, Peter. I have learned so much from you and everyone else on here. Steven King is my favorite author but you are definitely in the number two spot :)

elf said...

Propaganda (noun)
1) ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader,a government, etc.
2) the spreading of ideas, information, or rumors for the purposed of injuring an institution, a cause, a person.
3) ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further ones cause; also: a public action having such an effect.

~mj said...

Observation: Mr. Hyatt clearly spoke of Islam teachings. He did not single out Muslims as a whole, in fact pointed out that there are Muslims that are negatively impacted by these extreme Islam teachings. They are not, in all cases, one and the same, that is a connection Jamie made.

Then to go on to imply these statements weaken SA - when in fact SA has been proven thorough once again as it drew out Jamie's agenda by the miss use of the word Muslim instead of Islam, as was used in the original comments.

The offense taken is plainly clear, as is the slight undermining of how serious a problem the extreme Islam teachings are. Really are Mr. Hyatts grounds for comment deletion "high moral ground?" Or are they possibly his perogative, as this is his blog?

Peter Hyatt said...

The extreme level of violence in large percentage Muslim countries is against Muslims.

Muslim women are the highest percentage of victims in Muslim nations.

Muslims who renounce Islam are targeted;
Muslims who do not adhere to Sharia are targeted;
Muslims who befriend Christians and Jews are targeted.

In nations where Islam is not in the majority, "kaffir" are targeted, but Muslims can be labeled kaffir for not following Sharia.

There are plenty of pro Islam websites to post apologetics for Islam . This isn't one of them.

The ideology is one of violence and it is against progress, therefore immune from reformation.

It is against Islam, under the penalty of death, to criticize Islam.

Imams in Europe are more frank when they say Islam is incompatible with democracy.

My focus is upon the criminal and brutal activity that is prescribed in the Koran. When someone writes that "the same" is in the Bible, they must take an interpretive stance that Christianity has not taken in 2000 years, while Islam's literal interpretation of brutality has 1400 years of consist literal application bringing death everywhere.

Next, what of the "mercy" passages in the Koran?

They say 'Allah has the right to change his mind" and the latter (jihad) versus trump the former (mercy).

This matters little when someone is strapped with bombs yelling "Allah Akbar" but, really, it must be those 'damned pesky Christians and their guns, suicide bombings and killing left and right', that the propagandist (MSM, White House) tells us about, but we just don't see it.

What bothers me most about the deception in the Islam posts? It is this:

Since this post went up this morning, until now, approximately 23 people are now dead, directly murdered in obedience to the ideology of supremacy.

Come back in a few hours and the body count will be higher. They don't take Sundays off, and Ramadan has the greatest increase, each year, in dead bodies.

Peter

Anonymous said...

I tried to read Jihad watch but I could not stomach it. Then i saw this about gays: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/gays_and_muslim_refugees.html
I don't know how you can even stomach reading this shit or even write about it .

Peter Hyatt said...

Anon,

I sometimes skip days of reading just because it does feel unbearable at times. It is incredibly sad and the political correctness is a de facto submission to the Sharia blasphemy law forbidding criticism.

The story of Mass. school honoring the "clock boy" hoax I skipped. I did not read the one on the gay man, either, and I now cannot see the videos. It is just all too much horror, and the consistency of violence, in every country, against every people, in every generation, for all of its history is a testament to its power.

Nicolai Sennels has done a very good job explaining the psychology behind it, and how it has, for 14 years, resisted progress and self reformation, as its teaching plainly state "no criticism", and to leave means death, and the call for close marital relations has meant not simply the lowest IQs possible, and the most extreme percentages of developmentally disabled children, (and the financial drain) but a most difficult time reasoning with its followers about violence.

One journalist was trying to show another just how violent the Islamist and video'd himself debating one in the UK, and the video ends with the Imam whopping the driver across the face.

For us, the Western mind, turning the other cheek shows strength but the for supremacist, Islamic mind, it is weakness.

"Women and children first" was an honorable self sacrificing philosophy. It is an insult to the Islamic mind.

It is so different that one must simply begin to read for oneself, especially as Europe moves towards war, to learn why the World Trade Centers caused world wide celebration, from Jersey to Saudi Arabia, amongst its followers, and why the United States and Israel are so horribly hated.

When you hear "poverty", research it. You'll find the devout adherence to the Koran to the elevation of violence comes from middle class and upper class, more than lower class financial status.

It is to reward violence with "sexual reward" in the afterlife. See Dr. Sennells on women and Islamic sexuality to learn why so many sex crimes are culturally committed.

Someone close to me was part of the Afghani "stand down" order on the rape of little boys that our soldiers were not allowed to stop, lest the Islamic culture be "insulted."

Peter

Anonymous said...

The actual report is here https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/gay-asylum-seekers-face-threat-from-fellow-refugees-in-europe/2015/10/23/46762ce2-71b8-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_story.html
They report that officials have had to move gay men away from the other refugees for their own safety.

elf said...

I.don't get why people shouldn't be islamaphobic?? If someone says they want to kill you, for whatever reason, you should be afraid, right? And not all phobias are irrational, my phobia of snakes grew exponentially after I was bitten by a snake while walking on a nature trail. My fear grew to greater proportions at the beginning of this past summer when a snake got in my house. Am I silly because I've since taken the precaution to put mothballed under my house and where high ankled boots when I go hiking to prevent further dangerous encounters with snakes? Maybe. But forewarned is forearmed. Snakes want to kill me. Muslim extremists want to kill me. Its all one and the same to me. When I'm scared of something I figure its biology to proceed with utmost caution and care because there is a threat to my well being. I'm sure someone else could explain it better but y'all know what I mean lol

Anonymous said...

Don't mean to ruffle any feathers here, but IMO anyone who does not understand this article to it's fullest intent must be sleeping under a rock in a rain forest where there are no poisonous killer snakes. Ha! No such place exists.

Peter could not have expressed his views better or more intelligently in this article. No, we don't always totally agree, specifically in two different child murder cases I've lamented over for several years; but certainly there is no disagreement with this article.

Keep up the good work, Peter. You will see progress eventually. Seriously. ABB

Anonymous said...

Dictionary:

phobia: (n.) an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations; “phobic disorder is a general term for all phobias”; phobic disorder; phobic neurosis;

From the trip journal of a prolific apologist:

"The idea that anyone would describe these as 'no go areas' - well, that seems cynical, to say the least. You could not pay people to go there, not even for a day - not if they had a penny to their name to begin with, then.

True, it was no fun at Calais either - the migrants are a desperate scary, sorry sight- I would not pass through there now, since my last experience, last autumn, was so disturbing; I was safe, but I did not feel safe, and conditions are worse now, so there's no Europe by ferry on my itinerary, at least not for the foreseeable future."

Questions:

a) What causes islamophobia?

b) What causes apologism?

c) What if you can't leave?

Peter Hyatt said...

I fear Islam in the way I fear Nazism and Fascisim ideology.

Islamic ideology calls for my destruction along with the destruction of Jews, Christians, Muslims who leave Islam, homosexuals, and so on. It is an ideology that has "put its money where its mouth is" for 1,400 years.

My contact with "moderate Muslims" has been difficult. They do not support Jihad, but will not, for example, interact or serve a Jew. The moderates have very high rates of domestic violence because of its belief in women's inferiority. As I have talked about also, the culture of hitting people I found that threats of loss of job, for example, would not change those who took care of elderly patients: if the patient refuses medication, they are slapped in the face.

I was originally critical with the cartoon nonsense wondering, "why provoke them?" only to look into the reason why, and see that it is a fight over freedom that must be waged, otherwise the demands grow.

Bat Yeor speaking in the United States was met with shout downs most ever time, with some locales canceling the speech. Her work was in defense of freedom and politicians would rather not have a riot on their hands, so they give in to Muslim demands for imposing the rule of no criticism of Islam.

Robert Spencer, who is Roman Catholic, is banned from traveling to the UK, while the Muslim Brotherhood routinely bullies their way into schools and government entities.

Barak Obama tells us that Islamic terror has nothing to do with Islam and even had anti terrorism manuals drop "Islam" from it while he adds "right wing Christian extrmests" to the lists! George W Bush said "terrorists hijacked a peaceful religion."

That Islam needs to be called the religion of peace, itself, should be an unnecessary statement (analysis) which, itself, tells us that it is in need of a mask.

One of the volunteer staff said she had deleted a comment that said something about my analysis being discredited due to my criticism of Islamic violence.

Now that's something special!

I'm searching for an article on percentages....I will post soon.

Anonymous said...

Peter are you going to analyze the recent Deorr Kunz family interview? Transcripts are on earlier post. Thanks.

Peter Hyatt said...

ABB wrote:

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Don't mean to ruffle any feathers here, but IMO anyone who does not understand this article to it's fullest intent must be sleeping under a rock in a rain forest where there are no poisonous killer snakes. Ha! No such place exists.


I appreciate your kind comments more than you might realize...especially after I was told what was deleted.

I am not going to debate a holocaust denier. If someone wants to, it is up to them, but with all that we know about the 6 million Jewish deaths in that time period, (the number might even even higher) someone has to have an agenda to even have this debate and I have no interest in engaging them.

It is the same who see, day after day, people being killed all around the world. If they wish to deny it, there are places they can do that, but we here will simply delete; it is not worth the debate and the frustration language from ABB words it better than mine. That and the World Trade Center bombing (Jews bombed the WTC) nonsense have no place here. They go with Elvis sightings.

People did not believe, at first, that Muslims in NYC wanted to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It was shocking.

Here is one of the articles, and I encourage others to post videos made by citizens as to what is going on in Europe.



Peter Hyatt said...

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:


Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. – Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Peter Hyatt said...

The above numbers are almost a decade old (some from 2005) and the "current" populations are all significantly higher today, and in Germany, for example, Merkel finally admitted that it was not 800,000 new Islamics in for 2015, but 1.5 million.

When each is permitted to bring over family, the number of Islamists into Germany from 2015, alone, comes to...

6 million.

This is a frightening number as Islam teaches pathological hatred of Jews.

Peter Hyatt said...

Here is a link

http://pamelageller.com/atlas_shrugsmuslim-immigration/

The study is old, and is available at Amazon.

A bit off topic:

Doer family new interview transcript?

Peter Hyatt said...

This is not hitting our news:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSi6dkw0m0M

Anonymous said...

Peter: We have a list of videos that you can share. Some have been banned, others pulled by You Tube. Google has shut down one of the blog reports but we are getting the truth out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-QX8LuKHA is a documentary for those who do not know what is going on out there. Denmark will arrest, Sweden will arrest and this video is cut and spliced as a documentary and we have had more than a half million views. We allow for all sharing but not changing any of the content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-QX8LuKHA

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Peter are you going to analyze the recent Deorr Kunz family interview? Transcripts are on earlier post. Thanks.
October 25, 2015 at 4:17 PM


Where is it?

Peter

Anonymous said...

Hey didn't you support this guy for president you hypocrite?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3WVE8lI9c

Susan said...

Peter there is a cover up in Sweden of a rape of a baby.

A male refugee in an asylum center in Tingsryd municipality in Sweden, on Tuesday raped a three-year-old child.

Responsible of the asylum center learned about the rape during the day, and in collaboration with the Swedish Migration Board had decided to move the man from the accommodation to protect him.

They had also chosen not to contact the police in order to conceal this incident.

However it was revealed when friends of the girl's mother contacted the police. Eight hours later.

But at the asylum center, the police could not get hold of the man, as he had been moved to another place, and employees at the asylum center were reluctant to tell the police of the man's new location, who he was, or any information at all.

According to a radio clip from Swedish Radio, the police had to contact a responsible in the Migration Board and force the truth from those in charge of the accommodation.

Susan said...

Refugee children tricked a young woman on Södermalm and then took turns to rape and abuse her for hours.

The prosecuted four refugee children, according to the Prosecutor, was lying about their age.

The woman was at the Stadsgårdskajen in Stockholm on the night of September 9 when the defendants, coming from North Africa and living in the streets, got in touch with her.

The Prosecutor states to Aftonbladet that the woman was sad and that refugee children were “cute” towards her and tried to comfort her.

They then went with her to the green area of the lookout point, where they suddenly went to attack and launched a brutal group rape, which according to the arrest statement would have been going on for several hours.

The woman finally succeeded, badly scarred, to escape and was able to stop a passing bus, according to Aftonbladet. She then got help at the hospital.

The defendants claim to be between 13 and 16 years old, but according to the Prosecutor, they were lying about their age.

“A doctor has looked at them, and he has made a medical examination, and this doctor has made the assessment that all of them are more (above) than 15 years of age, said the Prosecutor to FriaTider.

John mcgowan said...

Peter Hyatt said...
Anonymous said...

"Peter are you going to analyze the recent Deorr Kunz family interview? Transcripts are on earlier post. Thanks".

October 25, 2015 at 4:17 PM


"Where is it?"

Peter

Hi


It's in the comments section, Peter, under "Karen Mackie Transcript on Scam" Article

Sus said...

I can only speak for myself. I do not have an agenda besides using SA to reach the truth. I spoke of the letter, and only the letter. I believe it to be a fake. It may portray some accurate facts, but not experienced by the writer. If allowed to I would be happy to expand on why I feel this way.

Also, contrary to your assertion that I know nothing about the training doctors receive and the "exotic" diseases that accompany compromised immune systems, I do. My little brother died of AIDS. I am aware of the "exotic" (said no doctor ever) diseases picked up in the farm lot and sheep barn. So are doctors of "Europe."

elf said...

I understand the article. I made an analogy. It is obvious that you meant to ruffle some feathers, (though you didn't ruffle mine as I'm not a chicken) by starting your post by saying "Don't mean to ruffle any feathers here.." I do appreciate your humor though :)

LisaB said...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/10/deorr-kunz-family-speaks-during-final-2015-search/

LisaB said...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/10/deorr-kunz-family-speaks-during-final-2015-search/

ima.grandma said...

Sus, I'm so pleased to see your name pop up. :)

Clock Boy said...

Happy Ashura, Peter!

Enjoy the beautiful color red for Fall!!

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/ashura-spilling-blood-for-their-religion/

Anonymous said...

Explain please:... batting 1.000 due to conservative and diligent conclusions"

Sounds like a backhanded compliment?

ima.grandma said...

"Forgive me, Juliet, if I don't remember my history correctly; it's been awhile. Wasn't it from England that the original, brave (& probably happy too) "Band of Pilgrims" set sail for America aboard the Mayflower in 1620?" asked sarcastic ima.grandma.

C'mon Juliet. Smile. Truce?

Lis said...

Thank you, Peter, I appreciate your blog and have learned so much here. If my comments have caused any offense, please forgive me.

I do have reservations about the letter from the German doctor. I don't doubt there are difficult issues happening, I don't doubt that there are very troubling things happening in Europe, as well as here in the U.S. I read about these issues in the news, and I share some of your concerns. But the letter itself, I am unsure of. It contains broad generalizations and blanket statements. It does not read to me like something a doctor would have written. I would expect it to be more specific, more detailed and accurate on exact points, more professional, somehow. I wonder if it could have been someone involved in clinic work who is not a doctor. Again, I could be wrong, but it reads to me like propaganda rather than a detailed report from a doctor.

The letter paints a very vivid picture of a desperate situation but in broad and general terms. It does not seem to allow for any decent patients from this group; the whole group is given one character. This doesn't seem likely to me. Surely there are some who appreciate the doctor and are kind towards their children. I allow for the fact that any group tends to have a predominant temperament but surely an entire group cannot have the exact same temperament and attitude with no variation. The letter writer is completely exasperated but has no constructive ideas as to how to manage the situation. It seems like a doctor would have thought through to this point and had some ideas "we need more doctors per patient" or some kind of constructive ideas or at least seeking some.

Again, I could be wrong, the situation could be so extreme, so horrifying and exasperating that there is nothing positive happening at all and no possible solutions, but usually when I read something that is written in the tone of this letter, I find that it came from someone with strong beliefs and an agenda. If that is not the case here, the letter writer would do well to learn to communicate in a more precise, calm and balanced way.

I hope this does not offend, it is only my own opinion and I hope I've stated it well, without any rancor and without belittling the worries the letter touches on.

ima.grandma said...

Well said Lis.

Anonymous said...

Peter, best wishes on your new business venture! You will do well.

Stay out of Texas (Norwegian for crazy) and think before hitting the publish button...104E is still at large.

I'll refrain from anymore comments as not to appear a foolish follower when the limelight hits your business.

Good luck! Much blessings...you pick.

Sus said...

Lis,
You said it much better than I. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Verb tenses, lack of specifics, "If"s, language shift on what she calls her own country, re telling of stabbing with events out of order... For Snopes to simply say "unverifiable" is generous. For this "doctor" to call patients she admittedly refuses to treat "animals" says it all. The language gives her away- except for ("Truly...") conversations laced with contempt for those holding greeting signs, she has not witnessed any of this herself.

It was clear The Snopes article was a threat when it was discounted without being linked or quoted. If the writer (the same one who debunked Rainbow Lady) could be refuted, she would have been.

Lis and Sus are correct: propaganda.

Anonymous said...

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6697/sweden-collapse

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6753/germany-migrants-demands

This is a documentary produced in Germany. The documentary is in German, subtitles English. This isn't propaganda themed. This is not US against them. This is a documentary with one woman who interviews persons from all sides, all ages, all of free will replies. Some of these persons interviewed are youth, teen boys. They born in Germany, their parents transplants from Muslim regime countries/nations.

They are Muslim first. They do not find themselves Germans. They obey no one but their religion. They who live in a two sided parallel with no true identity relative to Germany's society.

This is "ingrained" within them from birth, they are the Superior being, they are above all. Anyone who is a non follower of Islam should not be able to live among them in Peace.

They allow the citizens of Germany to revolve around them.

They are embedding their strength as their numbers grow within the incoming migrants in droves. The majority of incoming male, illiterate, under-educated 2nd, 3rd generation without any formal edu. Some refuse to learn the German language. This they use as leverage. They with a mission, to impose their I.S. control over everyone. How is the Muslim first, born in Germany, who is educated by Germany's public schools going to react to their incoming male rival ? who say isn't from Albania, yet is from Turkey, conflict, you can bet on it.

Survival of the fittest, this were there will be More " weakening' within the already unstable lack of structure. The interviewer is literally shocked by replies of some, these some who were once respected regarded citizens, German born. They NO longer ask questions, nor do they file complaints. One being a HS teacher. The Reaction of their simple questions and or requests is they receive " back" from the Adult Muslim Parent, " you are of no authority, you are a Nazi"

This is spreading and its' conceivable that 'they will be on doorsteps" of nations, even ones who have said NO. The US has said Yes. This is no different than Elf's Snake preparedness.

https://youtu.be/KVWAIKoatWM

Published on Sep 6, 2015

A very important and sobering documentary that clearly illustrates how catastrophic islam and non-Western immigration, has been, and still very much is, for Germany

Erick said...

Anon- it's only propaganda if we disagree with the cause. That's why Harvard coeds with "social justice agendas" are discounted as rape victims but we accept every single rape in Sweden as fact.

Anonymous said...

"What's that, Lassie boy?"......ahem, Peter, I am sure you know....Lassie was a girl.

Anonymous said...

Tell you the truth, I never was much into Lance Armstrong; for one thing, I am not a people worshiper, for another, something about him turned me off. You might call it a 'discernment of spirits?" I wasn't real sure about the truth concerning his cancer either; he's had this serious testicle cancer and he's out there crushing his testicles on a bicycle seat? It didn't add up then and it doesn't add up now. Guess I was wrong about that one, huh?

Not sure what it was, maybe his lofty attitude, but something about him always bothered me. At first, I thought that possibly the negative comments being made about him were due to jealousy, knowing there is always someone viciously jealous of another who is smarter or more successful or wealthier than they are; THEN these drug and cheating accusations became more acute as if they could be substantiated. Oh what the heck, I didn't like his smirk much anyhow, especially since I'm not into sports so much and he's got a 'holier than thou attitude'... so what's he hiding? So it turns out he was a liar and a cheater afteral.

But then there's Pete Rose whom I did admire even though he has been a gambler and a liar. Say what you want, but he DID hit all those bats in and was NOT under the influence of any substance abuse, and IMO does deserve to be in the hall of fame for his accomplishments whether he bet on baseball or not, which IMO is a whole separate issue.

Anonymous said...

Peter, ref Hailey Dunn's violent sexual abuse and murder, I'd be very interested in reading your interview with KWES from last week. Where can I find it? T/Y ABB

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
"What's that, Lassie boy?"......ahem, Peter, I am sure you know....Lassie was a girl.
October 26, 2015 at 2:16 AM

I had hoped at least one person would catch it.

Was there a show or movie that portrayed Lassie as male?

Peter Hyatt said...

Pete Rose not only bet on baseball, but made decisions based upon bets.
It is also alleged that he use various forms of amphetamines while playing.

As a kid, I loved him until he whopped little Buddy Harrelson, but even after, his style of play was the gold standard for hustle.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Verb tenses, lack of specifics, "If"s, language shift on what she calls her own country, re telling of stabbing with events out of order... For Snopes to simply say "unverifiable" is generous. For this "doctor" to call patients she admittedly refuses to treat "animals" says it all. The language gives her away- except for ("Truly...") conversations laced with contempt for those holding greeting signs, she has not witnessed any of this herself.

It was clear The Snopes article was a threat when it was discounted without being linked or quoted. If the writer (the same one who debunked Rainbow Lady) could be refuted, she would have been.

Lis and Sus are correct: propaganda.


In this post, anonymous gives the reason why it is "fake." I cannot answer "verb tenses" because analysts and even untrained know to be cautious about 2nd language. As to "specifics", "specifies" is exactly what it contains. It contains sensory language, as well. There is one assertion that anonymous makes to prove it to be "fake", which does allow me to answer the post, which is why it was not deleted:


A medial professional used the word "animals" for patients, therefore, it must be "fake,"

Since we analyze according to principle, we apply principle evenly, and in all cases. What do we find?

Those who are either first hand victims of violence, or up close to it (secondary) will often use inappropriate language regarding the perpetrator of violence, which signals us that the person's emotions are in play, due to experiential memory.

The politeness is a signal of deception. This is where "three gentlemen attacked me" type of statements come in. The language must equal the situation.


It was the author's vulgar and angry demeanor that highlights truthfulness.

This anonymous post allows for correction because it gives reason why the poster believes it was fake.

Although this is a post-script, it may help: if you believe that medial professionals do not use angry, vulgar terms, you do not know medical professionals and you do not know human nature. This is why I reference "human nature" in posts: those who do not have a basic understanding of it will not detect truth, therefore, miss deception. If anonymous does have a grasp of human nature, the post then becomes agenda-driven. Doctors, nurses and medical professionals all use the very language you deny, not only in crisis, but in humor, to blow off stress, with one another, no different than other professionals.

You may have an agenda as to why you want this to be fake ("no borders, anarchy, mulit-culturalism), or you may not know anything about analysis, but even an untrained person is likely to understand that a victim or eye witness to violence does not use polite language.

Fake Hate often does.

As to Snopes, I had not heard of Snopes until recently, and I have only read a few articles from them, but have been disappointed by the articles which claim to be "analysis" of claims.

In Statement Analysis, we have principles to follow and guide us, and then later, to correct us. When you come upon fake crimes you will note that the language is often softer than that which would equate the element of fear, out rage, and especially intrusion (in any language).

Peter

ima.grandma said...

Personal ethics and professional agreements prevent me from discussing specific cases. I can assure you doctors are every bit as human and emotional as anyone else on our planet.

Peter Hyatt said...

ima.grandma,

Confidentiality still allows you to speak in general terms. We avoid not only names, but any facts that can disturb confidentiality. We can, however, speak in overall, basic terms.

I was glad for the opportunity to correct the anonymous poster. With "anonymous", there is no feel of personal insult.

Imagine using the poster's finding for analysis?

We would turn our analysis upside down. Not only would "fake hate" be considered truthful, but real accounts of up close violence, including rape victims, would appear deceptive because of the harsh language.

I thought of "brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed" as "beasts" used specifically, even as I consider the violent cultures this applied to. Without strong language, no such close violence was evidenced and I would have followed the language to show the letter to be fake.

I left the post up, not only because it was "anonymous" but because the poster left the reason to believe the letter was fake. IT was a bold claim, especially given the 2nd language element, but can also show how agenda, or "narrative" can trump reason. I don't think anyone reading it will think, "this is stupid and they learned it here?" as the poster did not attempt to quote any principle.

If the poster actually believes medical professionals are above being human in language, one can imagine the downfall should the poster experience a private conversation. This is such a stretch that it causes me to consider narrative or agenda, over actual belief.

If you enjoy history, take a look at this article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/migrants_and_the_fall_of_european_civilization.html

It has caused me to want to track down his historical references. It reminds me of what happens to those who do not learn from history.

Someone asked about the migrants denying the holocaust because it is actually against the law to do so in Germany.

No prosecutions, however, for Islamic followers, as it is only illegal for German citizens to deny the holocaust unless they claim to be Muslim. Muslim schools do not teach the holocaust, nor are required to, and in German elementary schools that have Muslims, the teachers, for almost a decade now, have not taught the holocaust nor the crusades. MSM reported this years ago.

Let me know what you think of the history lesson. It is fascinating.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Re: Deorr family interview


Thanks, John, I saw that Vita said it was a nightmare of people talking over each other!

I thought that DeOrr Sr had given us a lengthy praise of how efficient all the searching was, or did I miss something?

Peter

Anonymous said...

"I cannot answer "verb tenses" because analysts and even untrained know to be cautious about 2nd language."

Conveniently one-sided how there's no issue with translation until flags emerge, then the notion of "caution" emerges. That is not applying principle evenly.

"first hand victims of violence, or up close to it (secondary)"

What violence? The attack late in her narrative at "a hospital near the Rhine" (obviously not hers)? The one where "migrantS" (general) with "kniveS" (general) Did it after the child was turned over (not after the child died). The narrative is all out of order. Maybe the translator moved sentences around??? She says the child died after being "dragged across Europe" for three months. This medical professional doesn't even begin to tell us why this child died, but does tell us who is to blame. That screams agenda on her part. Until she gets to that part, late in her narrative (low priority), she's just concerned about sexist poor people with attitudes towards this woman who refuses to treat them.

She never linguistically commits to any personal interaction with them herself.

Also, you left out the part of my statement where I point out this doctor REFUSES TO TREAT PATIENTS, not just that she calls them "animals" but she refuses to do her job as do other "women" (all women? some women? so unclear) in her profession according to her statement.

"You may have an agenda as to why you want this to be fake"

I do not have an agenda as to why I want this to be fake. Peter, just because I don't share your well-documented agenda, doesn't mean I have the opposite agenda. As much as you want it to be, the world is not a simple "us" versus "them" dynamic.

"Since we analyze according to principle, we apply principle evenly, and in all cases."

I've been waiting over a year to see you make a statement like this in the first person singular. Still waiting...

Anonymous said...

Does the writer of this letter ever commit to having any interaction herself with the people she calls animals and refuses to treat? Violent or otherwise? What, at all, has happened TO HER that warrants her reaction?

ima.grandma said...

Humanity is complex, to say the least. We are capable of committing acts that can either be benevolent and selfless, or sickeningly heinous. 

One of the most renowned shows of cruelty at the hands of people are the various punishments dealt out by the Puritans. To control their communities they used unjust and unnecessary means, all justified by their deluded religion. The Puritans believed in an intolerant political system whose priorities promoted the duty of suppressing heresy, of subduing and removing dissenters.

Peter I appreciate the link. I've skimmed it and am contemplating.

I adore history. It teaches us so much about ourselves, our past and our future.

lynda said...

Great piece Peter and informative! Since I am relatively new to your work it was good to read what is expected and your opinions on certain matters. Thanks

Sus said...

Anon said, "What at all has happened TO HER that warrants her reaction?"

What is more, THEIR women usually do not work AT ALL.

If this continues and German reopens its borders, I'M GOING HOME to the Czech Republic. NOBODY CAN KEEP ME HERE in this situation, NOT EVEN DOUBLE THE SALARY than at HOME.

She takes possession of the fact "their women" don't work. Not only that they don't work, but "at all."

"I'm going home" states what she wants.

"Nobody can keep me here" means that there is somebody that keeps her there. When you add the "than at home", it seems to be someone from her home.

"not even double the salary..." The obvious reason NOBODY is keeping her there while THEIR WOMEN don't work AT ALL.

Matt Whan said...

That was a bit harsh on Lie To Me. I really enjoyed that show. Absolutely, some of it was a stretch, but I don't remember it as having rapid conclusions based on a Microexpression. I reserve judgement on all forms of Deception detection. Simply because each eventually contradicts the other and so on. I take what I find to bebuseful from each. There is aspects of linguistics that force.me to cock an eyebrow in incredulity, for example, analysis which say "we don't interpret" then go on to say "the person used the very twice, so it is sensitive therefore the relationship the person is in is doomed.

Indeed.

Each form of Deception detection has its own merits. I like it all, but I have found myself saying things in day to day conversation where I am being truthful, but words I use could be construed otherwise.

I agree there is statistics that back each discipline, some seem a stretch at best. Regardless, I won't bash one form of detection versus another. I'll take all the information I can get and make my own conclusion.

Juliet said...

Peter, sorry for over-reacting a bit, if I did. I thought because Sus got deleted when she first ventured it was fake that you were saying it was genuine.

Ima.grandma - l'm not at war. :)

Here is some of what I think about the letter:

'Those animals' - I don't think a professional would say that publicly, at least not if she wanted to be regarded as a professional, but it is not unexpected for purposes of propaganda purporting as a personal email.

More telling, is the letter writer's ignorance in regard to Muslim modesty rules, where she says:

'Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and, we, women, are refusing to go among those animals, especially from Africa'

It is common knowledge that Muslims, male and female, are apt to decline treatment by members of the opposite sex, on grounds of modesty - sometimes even from members of their own sex on the same grounds, and to the detriment of their own health. The author claims that 'many Muslims' are refusing treatment 'by female staff'. What she does not state, and what would be expected, is that female Muslims are refusing treatment from male doctors, even from Muslim male doctors, and that male Muslims are refusing treatment from female doctors. Instead she understands it only in terms of it an anti-women issue - that it is only 'female staff' who are the problem to 'many Muslims', rather than that male and female Muslims alike require to be treated by members of their own sex. This would indicate to me that she is aware that in they eyes of many Muslims women are regarded as inferior to men, but that's about as far as her knowledge goes - she doesn't know that the modesty rules apply to both sexes, where they are observed.

This, I think, is her main issue:

'Nobody who has not come in contact with them has no idea what kind of animals they are, especially the ones from Africa, and how Muslims act superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.'

That's confusing - she may or may not be indicating there that she has not personally come into contact and has no idea 'what kind of animals they are' (really) - the language difficulty has to leave that open to question. It seems she has heard of, or possibly encountered, some scary poor uneducated African Muslims, but she has also come into contact or been made aware of the Syrians fleeing ISIS, amongst them many medical professionals - they are not 'animals' - rather they 'act superior'. I think that was unexpected to the writer, who probably being Czech, would have certain preconceptions regarding Muslims, learned through Czech media. She expected 'animals' and besides the 'animals' also found well spoken, well educated refugees who 'acted' superior about their religious accommodation.

I think it likely the writer was already working at a Munich hospital for the higher salary, and finds her comfort to be inconvenienced by the influx of refugees and migrants; I think she is the cleaner she writes about:

'Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who for 800 Euros cleans every day for years, and then meets young men in the hallways who just wait with their hand outstretched, want everything for free, and when they dont get it they throw a fit.

I really dont need this! But Im afraid that if I return, that at some point it will be the same in the Czech Republic. If the Germans, with their nature cannot handle this, there in Czechia it would be total chaos.'

She immediately follows the statement about the cleaning woman with 'I really don't need this!' - she is angry that the young men are given things for free, while she works hard every day for years.



Anonymous said...

She doesn't even assert they are getting things for free, only that they are asking.

Sus said...

One thing I've been wanting to bring up is that the US does have "no go" areas. It really doesn't affect the European conversation, and are not as prevalent, but just as harmful to a certain population.

They are Native American Resrrvations. Though reservations are overseen by federal LE, daily enforcement is by tribal council.

We've covered some cases here where we were astonished that the perp was allowed to walk. Reservations declare their own laws. You've probably seen news coverage of school shootings or other crimes where outside LE was not allowed to enter for hours, or even days.

I'm not certain of other crime statistics on reservations so I won't quote them. The one I do know is rape. One in three Native American women living on reservations report being raped.

Why are reservations allowed to harbor crime? To live under their own laws, contrary to US law? It's the PC thing to do. We took their land. We owe them their own nation and sovereignty. A "no- go" area.

Juliet said...

She is probably working in Germany for the higher salary in order to provide for her family back home. Since the migrant crisis her job has probably become harder and more unpleasant, especially if it involves the WCs. She would prefer to return home but financial obligation keeps her there - it's no longer quite the job she signed up,for. She is probably on a contract, so she can't leave without breaking the contract, which she wouldn't want to do as it would spoil her employment record. I think she calls them animals because of the state of the WCs (think airport facilities after certain flights have come in, but worse, with sick people).

Anonymous said...

Correlation Is Not Causation - Not An Argument!

A podcast, on topic within the comments posted.
Those of the mixed emotions written and or stated of doubt.
This thread. If the podcast content mid way makes
you uncomfortable, ask yourself why.


https://youtu.be/bvmhHXfJzFg

Peter Hyatt said...

Matt Whan said...
That was a bit harsh on Lie To Me. I really enjoyed that show. Absolutely, some of it was a stretch, but I don't remember it as having rapid conclusions based on a Microexpression. I reserve judgement on all forms of Deception detection. Simply because each eventually contradicts the other and so on. I take what I find to bebuseful from each. There is aspects of linguistics that force.me to cock an eyebrow in incredulity, for example, analysis which say "we don't interpret" then go on to say "the person used the very twice, so it is sensitive therefore the relationship the person is in is doomed.

Indeed.

Each form of Deception detection has its own merits. I like it all, but I have found myself saying things in day to day conversation where I am being truthful, but words I use could be construed otherwise.

I agree there is statistics that back each discipline, some seem a stretch at best. Regardless, I won't bash one form of detection versus another. I'll take all the information I can get and make my own conclusion.


Matt,

My kids love the show, so I have seen it entirely, and sometimes, as kids go, several times.

Regularly, they show instant "snap decisions" made, sometimes over and over in a single episode.

I enjoy body language analysis and have read quite a bit, and I cannot help but use it in live interviews (it is especially helpful in watching sports on TV) but there has been a decline in "experts" since the show was canceled and when it comes to one's career, you are not likely to find many in law enforcement willing to make very strong conclusions based on it.

Lie Detection is hard work. Period.

Reading the comments here, in this thread alone, tells you this. I can't afford to reserve judgment on forms of deception detection because there are cases backing up, and people counting on sound answers, from professionals to victims to family members.

They need concrete answers.

As I wrote to one detective this morning, this is a science. Scrutiny is good.

Reserving judgement postpones scrutiny.

Put on Netflix and count, in 43 minutes of any show, how many absolutes were made!

By the way, did you get Dr. Ekman's email announcement about declaring deception in an interview?

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Sus said...
One thing I've been wanting to bring up is that the US does have "no go" areas. It really doesn't affect the European conversation, and are not as prevalent, but just as harmful to a certain population.

They are Native American Resrrvations. Though reservations are overseen by federal LE, daily enforcement is by tribal council.

We've covered some cases here where we were astonished that the perp was allowed to walk. Reservations declare their own laws. You've probably seen news coverage of school shootings or other crimes where outside LE was not allowed to enter for hours, or even days.

I'm not certain of other crime statistics on reservations so I won't quote them. The one I do know is rape. One in three Native American women living on reservations report being raped.

Why are reservations allowed to harbor crime? To live under their own laws, contrary to US law? It's the PC thing to do. We took their land. We owe them their own nation and sovereignty. A "no- go" area.
October 26, 2015 at 12:05 PM


Sus,

I was part of one of the worst cases of emotional abuse I had ever witnessed, and dealt with residual guilt over it for years and even suffered bad dreams and sleep deprivation because of it.

I followed orders and should have refused, even with the little knowledge I had at the time. With what I learned on the spot, in just a few minutes, has left me with guilt lasting years. Just reading this has brought it back in ugly starkness.

I have testified in tribal cout. I know what happens when victim status is given, en masse, and how powerful and self defeating it is.

I know what it is like to have even peripheral guilt over something I could not stop. I think of that child, to this day, and wonder how much he has suffered and will suffer, to satisfy a political demand with all natural attachment ripped from his heart.

I know that it is easy to excuse my role in it, as nothing more than a glorified delivery boy but knowing kids, and knowing about attachment, trust, and betrayal, I know that should I live another 20 years, this will bother me still.

Peter

Sus said...

Thanks for sharing this, Peter. I'm sorry my post brought it back. You're probably aware that legislation has been introduced, but never passed, to change the enforcement of laws on reservations. Of course, LE's worries run more toward drugs and gun running than personal crime.

Anonymous said...

I fear for my family, my relatives and my friends, colleagues, neighbors, and others. I do so every day.

We know where things are heading.

We remind each other to be careful.

I do not want the people I love and care about to be killed by monsters jumping on their heads, or gang raped.

It can happen to anyone, any time. Women, elderly, men.

Children? "Who wants to put a child to this world?" I've been told this by my sisters and female friends.

Last week I had a conversation with a colleague, and I asked him when the war will begin. "That I don't know, but it will be sudden," he said. I told him about my thinking about leaving this country, and he wished me well. My siblings have the same thoughts, as do some of my friends.

These conversations are common. I've had them with everyone in my family, most of my relatives, all my friends, some of my colleagues and neighbors.

What could we hope for? The glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel is to leave. We do not want to be somewhere else, we do not want to leave, but there is no future for us here.

And what then, if the same happens there?

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous 4:44

I read reports each time, especially from some of the "sharia" watch websites, and I go to Google Chrome, and read some of the news in Europe.

I also get, due to the blog, reports from people (including professionals) from Europe.

I fear Islam the way I would have feared Naziism, but the numbers of Islam are nothing like tiny Naziism. Granted, most Muslims are "secular" but also most are afraid, themselves, to criticize Islam, for fear of violence, but the greatest hatred towards Jews and Americans is the most vicious.

When we involve ourselves in the type of free speech warfare that is currently "in vogue" in our nation, we are leaving ourselves so psychologically unprepared for what is about to come and those who, today, are against free speech (the NY Daily News posted a hate article against NY Mets Daniel Murphy for his view on marriage), will long for the day, to have it back, and defend free speech. .

Those currently today using "PC" to shout down, get terminated, vilified, and so much else, will be those who will be brutalized with that which is to come.

But by destroying free speech, like in Europe, they are psychologically unprepared to fight for their own country.

"I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it" is long gone now, in America. It leaves us unprepared for greater battle.

In Germany, anything that can "incite violence" is now "hate speech."

Victim groups can claim anything "insults" them, and they will "riot" if it does not stop, making almost anything a "hate crime" punishable by fines and eventual imprisonment.

I read recently that a truck company was sued.

They transported beer and soda but a large group of drivers refused to drive beer.

The courts ruled in their favor. They were "offended" by beer.

Schools are honoring the "clock boy" in Massachusetts.

Kids are taught the pillars of Islam in Tennessee.

Schools in NJ are fighting for Islamic holidays even though their religion is against deomocracy.

The "garment prison" that women must wear or be raped: Sears backed in and stopped selling "kaffir" caps and eBay is being pushed to stop halloween costumes that "insult" or "offend" Islam.

Islam, itself, calls for your death if you criticize it. Americans are, more and more, yielding to this and it is empowering the violence all around the world and Obama wants to import even more.

A country cannot have both welfare and no borders. This was a brilliant line, recently in Front Page. It is incompatible

Homosexuals persecuted with violent death: what will they think when this comes, as it has to other nations? Will they long for the days of protesting bakeries and look back and mourn the loss of freedom to disagree?

I am very afraid and this week:

253 dead
408 seriously injured by those carrying out the words of the Koran, quoting it, believing it, and obeying it.

These are the past 7 days and are what we know of... it is difficult to get figures from Indonesia.

It has nothing with violence against women that goes unreported.

Peter

Anonymous said...



http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614793/German-hospital-refugees-asylum-seekers-migrants-demand-breaking-point


it hit main streams media same story

LisaB said...

http://www.lassieweb.org/lassfact.htm
All the dogs portraying Lassie have been male. A female collie was hired to play the lead in Lassie Come Home, but when an opportunity came to film "Lassie" negotiating some rapids, the female reportedly would have nothing to do with the rushing water. Rudd Weatherwax's collie "Pal" was substituted, and not only stole the stunt but won the role. Weatherwax continued to use male collies in the role for a good reason: both sexes shed in the summer (when most movies and television shows traditionally film most of their episodes), an event called "blowing coat," but since the male has thicker fur, he wouldn't look so scrawny during filming. Also, fans tend to think of Lassie as a "big heroic dog." Female collies are usually 10-15 pounds lighter than their male counterparts, therefore a male dog playing Lassie would look more impressive. Female collies were not ignored because they are any less intelligent; in fact, some of Lassie's stunt doubles have been females.

LisaB said...

http://www.lassieweb.org/lassfact.htm
All the dogs portraying Lassie have been male. A female collie was hired to play the lead in Lassie Come Home, but when an opportunity came to film "Lassie" negotiating some rapids, the female reportedly would have nothing to do with the rushing water. Rudd Weatherwax's collie "Pal" was substituted, and not only stole the stunt but won the role. Weatherwax continued to use male collies in the role for a good reason: both sexes shed in the summer (when most movies and television shows traditionally film most of their episodes), an event called "blowing coat," but since the male has thicker fur, he wouldn't look so scrawny during filming. Also, fans tend to think of Lassie as a "big heroic dog." Female collies are usually 10-15 pounds lighter than their male counterparts, therefore a male dog playing Lassie would look more impressive. Female collies were not ignored because they are any less intelligent; in fact, some of Lassie's stunt doubles have been females.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Unfortunately, that also means that they are just as susceptible to greed and fraud as any other group of humans.

Anonymous said...

The Daily Express is a tabloid not mainstream media.

Juliet said...

More, the Daily Express is a comic. At least it's making an effort to not present it as undisputed fact - they say they are 'claims' - and the piece also gives a countering view from WHO, or whichever organisation- still, the Express readers will just accept it on face value, as already borne out by the comments.

Juliet said...

There's a truth to it - the writer's anger and upset is evident, but it's not the truth as written by a doctor - it's a shame she didn't just write her own real story and tell that how it is- pretending to be a doctor was not her best idea.

Matt Whan said...

Mr. Ekman has always appeared to me as a go-it-alone-er, you're absolutely right. Perhaps the show was modelled after his own narcissistic personality. And you are also right in saying that the show sometimes, or regularly makes absolutes and seeming snap judgements. I always attributed it to "well, they only have forty five minutes to explain a minute portion of the science" and I said to myself "I hope to be that Good someday". I apologize if my comment was offensive, that want my intent. I tried to write the post at the end of my lunch break.

There have been many times where I've used what I've learned from the show to supplement my interviews and was very pleased with the results. Mr. Ekman will be the first to say " only if I perform the interview will I be able to provide results. " or something to that affect. I know, it dropped my opinion of the whole thing a few pegs. From "Lie Spotter" written by Pamela Meyer, to Humintell, TheirWords, Mark McClish, and YouTube, as well as FACS, and Lie To Me, I'm about as slap-dash lie detection expert wannabe can get. I have been reading this blog for many months now. There are times when I say to myself "huh? I say that all the time, and I'm not lying" but, as I tell my wife, its something that can't be determined with just one word. Not only in statement analysis, many of the sources of information I've accessed say simply: it is hard. There are no "aha, gotcha!" Moments in Deception detection as a whole. No matter the discipline. Cluster of Blues, behavioural clusters, Microexpression clusters, symmetrical versus asymmetrical, none of which had an "aha gotcha!"

My wife and I watched an episode of Doctor Phil where he had a guest on the show of a young woman who was accusing her father of sexual abuse. Shortly after she started speaking, I looked to my wife and said: "she's lying". She, understandably got upset and didn't believe me. "Why would anyone lie about that? Not possible" why indeed? I explained to her that, whenever she spoke about "what happened" her face was smooth as glass. There were no fear, disgust, shame, anger expressions on her face. Even when she looked at her father, nothing. But the moment she looked at her mother, her face lit up with an explosion of expressions that was hard to keep up to. There was the anger, there was the contempt, but none of it was directed at her father. I thought to myself at the time, "how would I feel/look were I her?" Now, I'm certainly no expert, I don't pretend to be, I am certainly not claiming anything of the like, so when the polygraph results came back as she was deceptive I was elated. I guessed right! And it really was a guess based on a smattering of self-teachings, but right nonetheless. I know for a fact that not all cases are like hers, not all of them will/could be that easy, but I read the situation right based on what I taught myself.

Matt Whan said...

Again, my intention was not to offend so I apologize for how my message was worded and received. I get a bit defensive when I devote a lot of time and energy into learning something only to have someone who's opinion I respect essentially say that I've wasted my time.

I am just a humble, hard working man who has mouths to feed, like most of us on here. Only winning the lottery would help me pay for even half the courses I'd love to take (exaggeration), so I'm stuck learning what I can from the people generous enough to post work online for me to find.

elf said...

Maybe because she's afraid she didn't mention specifics. She doesn't want to get in trouble or break confidentiality even though the email was to a friend or colleague.
And to the anon above you, I think Peter uses rhw word we because this is more than a current events blog, its educational in nature, so he uses the word we like a teacher or professor would.

elf said...

What part of the US are you from? I live right close to Oklahoma, I have attended 2 pow-wows and purchased cigarettes on tribal land and what I saw was never even close to being any kind of 'no go zone' situation. Maybe some areas are poorer than others nut not war zone like areas.
As for the rape statistic, rape happens everywhere. It happens more than anyone or any agency can know. Not just on reservations.
And lots of rapist go free whether they're reported or not.

elf said...

*but not nut lol
having auto correct is like playing Mad Libs :)

Lis said...

Peter, thank you for your graciousness and the opportunity to learn.

I will agree that the writer's emotion could have been caused by trauma/violence towards her (although she makes no reference to any violence towards her, personally). But I would hope for some other verification and I am holding off judgment hoping more information will be found and revealed. And that is why I say, I could be wrong in doubting it, but I need more information. I can't assume that her revulsion was caused by a traumatic incident. Couldn't it also stem from something else, such as disgust, hatred, being deeply offended by very different values/habits than her own ?

If the writer had been a victim of violence or brutality, I wouldn't expect her to bring the lifestyle of the wives into the discussion, or the opinion that the subjects are freeloaders, or the unemployment numbers, or to disparage their level of education or the condition of their children. She especially points out the number of pregnancies and children. She does mention one violent incident that happened "in a hospital near the Rhine," but mostly she is expressing things that offend her.

I certainly believe that medical professionals may use vulgar terms or the like in personal conversation, and it is not these that make me doubt the letter's authenticity. It is the lack of precise or coherent details. (I would expect a professional to speak more professionally in a written communication like this, though. But, then, she was not expecting it to be shared with the world, apparently?)

Another problem is, when you have an anonymous letter that was apparently emailed to one person and then passed on from there, how do we know all of the original wording is intact and untouched.

Lis said...

A few things that give me pause:

"Yesterday, at the hospital we had a meeting" - who is we? what kind of a meeting - official? informal? planned? spontaneous?


"Clinics cannot handle emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the hospitals" - If she works at the hospital, and they are just 'starting' to send them to the hospital, is she speaking of her own experience in the rest of the letter or relating experiences she's heard second-hand?

"Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff" - not all but 'many'. She seems highly offended by this disregard of her authority and position on the basis of her sex. But, has this happened to her, personally? It's not clear.

"we, women, are refusing to go among those animals, especially from Africa" - is this the 'we' spoken of earlier? the women health providers? Women who agree that these are animals and they don't want to go among them?

She says they are refusing to go "among these animals" before she has recounted any bad experiences she personally had (other than some not wanting to be treated by a woman). She calls out Africa especially. Is this because those from Africa are more dangerous? She doesn't elaborate.

"Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units." - what happened last weekend? Why would she relate this fact without saying why? Missing information.

"Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe, do not know how to treat them" - these poor people!

She seems offended that they have these illnesses. Does she feel they are dirty, unsanitary?

"They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: 'So, cure them here yourselves!'" - is she saying that rather than pay for medication, they would abandon their child? They would go to all the trouble to bring their sick child in for treatment, probably wait for a long time in a crowded facility, and finally just abandon them?

Does every single refugee whose child needs medication do this? Did this happen once? twice? And they really abandon their sick child among strangers of an ethic group they apparently have such hostility towards? And then what? they go home?

"Truly we said openly:" - this may be an idiom that is lost in translation but, as it sounds on the surface, it leads me to question, did they say some things that were not true or are not in the open? and, again, who is 'we'?

"Most of these people are completely unemployable. A bare minimum of them have any education." - she is offended by their lack of education. She is offended by their lack of employable skills.

"In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, which they had dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are laid up in the ICU. Nobody has been punished."

- If this was not on the news (only through email) how does anyone know for sure it is true? If it did happen, it sounds like a complicated situation, one would want to know what the details were.

Again, I don't doubt at all that the situation with the refugees is presenting extreme difficulties but, on the other hand, should I automatically assume this particular letter is entirely factual and is written by who it is claimed to be, only because such a situation exists?

I hope more info comes out, I really want to know.

ima.grandma said...

Elf, I'm in central Oklahoma and am familiar with Indian territory. I'm of the Choctaw (one of the five Civilized Tribes) heritage from southeastern OK . I have witnessed discrimination especially in that area many years ago. I''ve not personally experienced what's been described but have no doubt of the horrible conditions throughout reservations scattered about the US. I've heard terrible stories. The little boy, Carnel Chamberlain comes to mind.
BTW, thank you for your kind comments the other day. :)

GeekRad said...

Peter, I did not see anything of your interview or about Hailey Dunn on KWES recently. Do you know when it will be aired? Is it going to be a special report?

Sus said...

Elf,
I was speaking more from an LE standpoint, I guess. I was comparing Native American law (Tribal Council and Courts) to Muslim areas in Europe (Sharia). I know, I know...they do not compare in views, but they do compare in shutting out the host country laws.

Here is an article about rape on reservations.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/native-americans-struggle-with-high-rate-of-rape.html?referer=http://jezebel.com/5912932/rape-on-indian-reservations-reaches-epidemic-proportions

ima.grandma said...

Lis, excellent surmise. I hope for strong evidence to confirm or deny. My guess is that none will arrive. Interested, informed people on both sides of the conversation have developed a sway by now. Does the letter determine subjectivity vs objectivity and where is the line down the middle? I don't know.

Is there a clear difference between a fake letter and a hate letter? We can apply principles to a fake hate letter relatively easy. I''m not ready to take a stand yet.

John mcgowan said...

Matt Whan said...

"There are no "aha, gotcha!" Moments in Deception detection as a whole. No matter the discipline. Cluster of Blues, behavioural clusters, Microexpression clusters, symmetrical versus asymmetrical, none of which had an "aha gotcha!"

Hi

May i refer you to the article "We Were Losing Light" Examined (Dennis Dechaine)

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/we-were-losing-light-examined.html

Although the conviction was mostly based on strong circumstantial evidence. The word "We" (for me), was a "aha, gotcha" moment, in SA terms, amongst other red flags. In his testimony, he said, "We were losing daylight" while asserting to have never met, nor seen his victim Sarah Cherry, 12 years old.. Yes, indeed, we do not go on one single red flag alone in SA, however. This is / was a a single pronoun slip up that told us he was not alone in the woods, (Where 12-year-old Sarah Cherry was found) although he said he was.

Pronouns are instinctive and take no thought. Even when recalling an event from 20 years ago, a person will know whether to start their account with "I" or "we"; that is, whether the person was alone, or with someone else.

Dennis Dechaine claimed to have been alone in the wood, yet what leaked out? The pronoun "we" found its way into his answer.

As he was describing the trees around him, he slipped into experiential memory, rather than the script he had given to his attorney.

We sometimes call this a "Confession by Pronoun." PH

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/we-were-losing-light-examined.html

Also see: "Confessions by pronouns"

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/pronouns-confessions-in-files.html


Door closing on long legal saga of convicted Maine killer Dennis Dechaine

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/07/21/convicted-killer-dennis-dechaine-denied-appeal-for-new-trial/

Juliet said...

I agree, that is an excellent surmise, Lis.

Another thought on the letter - of several, so I will post them over time. I do believe it reflects some of the author's personal experience. She has been repulsed by unsanitary conditions in the hospital. Sick people head to the WCs, so one would anticipate the presence of vomit and odours, just to begin; add to that, that in some cultures toilet habits differ, which can be a shock to those who do not realise that not everyone uses, or knows how to use a porcelain toilet (forbidden word to some of us, but to aid clarity). Finding multiple footprints all around the toilet seats, a wet floor with soggy lengths of loo paper, and paper cups discarded all around, in a normally well maintained hospital restroom would very likely cause you or I to think, 'Animals! Who behaves like this?' and account it to deliberate disregard and disrespect, rather than to a lack of knowledge with regard to how to use Western style facilities. In many cultures it is the custom to use two-steppers or squat toilets, often with a shower hose alongside for cleansing - toilet paper is regarded as unsanitary. Some incomers are unaware that our habits differ, so they assume we are weird and mad to climb onto a toilet seat to squat, and unhygienic to use toilet paper, as the custom is to cleanse with water, thus the proliferation of paper cups. Presumably, the children are initially interested in seeing what happens when a square of paper, or the end of a roll is pulled - so altogether there might on occasion be a seemingly trashed restroom. In our international airports, for instance, there are notices with illustrations on how to use a toilet - sitting person ticked, squatting on toilet seat crossed out. Soon enough, people work it out, though the odd footprints are sometimes still in evidence - obviously it's a sensitive issue (pun intended) and some people find the notices offensive; I think that's because they don't want people to assume that they, or Muslims in general, will be apt to leave footprints on anyone's toilet seats - others think the notices are an 'official' dissing of their way of doing things - well, maybe, or maybe some people are overly sensitive, when it is just meant as practical information and advisory. It's interesting, in regard to the superiority thing - Western habits are considered unsanitary, and vice versa. To find one's own customs challenged is quite likely to put one on the defensive, and to consider the one doing the challenging as 'acting superior' - imagine how infuriating that would be, if people were acting all superior about inadequate facilities to the person whose job it was to clean up all their mess. There, one could make sense of how someone might consider people to be somehow behaving like animals, whilst also acting superior - within the well ordered setting of a European hospital, where animal-like behaviour is not tolerated and results in ejection by security.

Continued ...

Juliet said...

My point here, thus the pre-amble, is that restroom facilities would pose a significant issue in regard to 'religious accommodation'; Western facilities lack foot baths or low level bathing facilities, which are necessary when an observant Muslim finds need to perform wudu, the cleansing ritual before prayer; not cleansing is not an option to some, so away from home or mosque, they find no alternative but to improvise by using public hand basins to wash their feet, sometimes splashing a lot of water in the process and creating the hazard of pooled water and slippery floors. I think anyone would be angry if that was their job, particularly if they weren't expecting it and thought the mess was due to vandalism, the pooled water due merely to mischief. Airport facilities are more likely these days to have showers, which reduces the problem, but it's an irony when what might appear uncivilised behaviour is the result of people trying to be clean according to their own habits and customs in an environment not suited to that purpose. Anywhere where there are 'new' and non-Westernised Muslims who only have access to public facilities, especially in already overcrowded conditions, will be likely to have at least some of that - if people can't account for it, the are likely to react with alarm. Also, the cleaning staff would be stretched and even normal standards of cleanliness not maintainable.

I think the letter writer is overwhelmed and confused by how people can create such a mess, whilst upon conversation, finds they are not the animals she assumes they must be - animals don't act superior, and similarly the description does not apply to those she more politely considers 'young men'.

I am convinced she is the cleaner, but am a tiny bit open to other possibilities - I also thought it possible she may be an attendant, but she can't be a doctor as she has virtually no medical knowledge - also she seems to spend more time amongst the refugees/migrants than an anaesthesiologist would, IMO, but that seems irrelevant, as I already think she is not a doctor. Also the only sympathy expressed towards anyone in the situation is sadness, by the professor, toward the cleaner... none to the presumably hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of sick children allegedly abandoned at the pharmacy. Who is the cleaner, she alone who is deserving of a sad mention by the revered professor, (who in her mind, is probably the most superior of them all)?

Juliet said...

It's as though she is appealing to the reader by using the highest person in the department to endorse the view of the lowliest, and that in between them are all these people making both their lives more difficult than they used to be. The professor cares and is saddened by the cleaner's hard life, which may be tough, but which alongside the plight of genuine refugees fleeing Syria and ISIS, is not nearly as bad as hers, seeing she has an income, and a home to which she can return in a safe country - so I am not convinced that conversation took place anywhere except in her head. By including, or creating (I don't know which) the conversation with the professor, she gives away her identity as the cleaner, IMO.

ima.grandma said...

Geekrad, long time - no see.
I was just thinking about you. I see Ms. Dunn has some activity going on over at the Texas Board of Nursing. At their last Board meeting (five days ago) her name was on the agenda for ruling on an Agreed Board Order. It now says she's in Suspend/Probate status. Her last Board Order of 2011 granted licensure with probation and several stipulations. I think she's been working in a nursing and rehab center, so either she has failed to meet the stipulations, a new disciplinary action or a removal of all restrictions. They haven't posted the links yet. I'm sure the staff is busy typing up the minutes, getting the Orders signed, etc, etc. but they'll post it. My guess is she failed to meet the conditions the Board required of her. She doesn't like to be told what to do.

ima.grandma said...

Okay Juliet, you've made some interesting points...
I've got to fix supper first and then I'm going to examine that dang letter.

Juliet said...

Lo- The Sheep - thanks - I didn't think of that, but that clinches it for me beyond a doubt - the letter was written by the cleaner.

Juliet said...

Sorry, The Sheep, i will try to explain: first I was putting myself in her position as a Czech, media-trained to dislike and fear Muslims. Then, as a member of staff who is not knowledgeable enough to be a doctor, and who has no aptitude for nursing. That leaves non-medical staff. Her own view of them, from the outset, is that they are animals. That's how she introduces Muslims. So, from where, within the hospital setting, did she gain that impression? If she's an attendant on a ward or outpatients, and a patient behaves like an animal, he or she will not remain there for long - people behave, as otherwise they will be removed, so the chances of her encountering such behaviour there are low. Next, I think of the restrooms, as I know these can cause problems - that, to my mind, is where and how she decided that they were 'animals' because that's a term people use to describe people who leave an unreasonable mess. In an overcrowded department, with sick people, some of whom would be unfamiliar with Western facilities, there was likely a mess which made her angry enough to call them 'animals'. That's how I arrived at her most likely being the cleaner.

I think she's probably refusing to clean up and they are probably resisting advice (treatment) as to how to use a toilet in a Western manner, not because she is female (they likely would be, too) but because, as new arrivals, they consider their own way proper and best, and find the porcelain toilet malarkey to be undignified - well, it would be, if they insisted on climbing on to it and squatting - I can't imagine - I am thinking to try it, just to see how discombobulating attempting that would be. I'd be on the verge of a nervous breakdown, expecting someone to slip off and crack their skull on a tiled floor, in addition to being really p*d off at the mess... So, it is that she called them animals, and in a hospital setting, where there is not much cause or reason, outside of a restroom, for anyone to be able to create such an unfavourable first impression. A doctor would not be entering the patient's restrooms - the only members of staff who would be obliged is the cleaner, or an attendant/auxiliary, accompanying a patient there.

Okay, I have to stop now because I am guessing on a critical eye at your end - you are wanting a proper word by word statement analysis, and I am doing my version, which is vague mishmashish, haphazard and lazy. I do get that - but I thought to explain that was how I arrived at the conclusion she isn't a doctor, and that she is the cleaner (most likely - until your post, which makes me convinced rather than almost convinced).

I think a lot of what she writes is a repetition of stories, hearsay and horror stories, so she can't reliably place herself in them or take ownership, as you say. Thanks for reading, though, and ima,grandma - sorry to be such a conjecturer.

Peter Hyatt said...

The Sheep said...

In this sentence:

Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and, we, women, are refusing to go among those animals,

She first refers to Muslims refusing treatment by "female staff"- treatment implying staff means medical. Here, as in other places, there's no first person ownership. Then she says "we, women" with some ownership, but she makes a change in language to "women" from "female staff" which implied medical. Why the change? Also, if she's a doctor, we'd expect "we...refuse to treat". But she doesn't; she says we, women are refusing to "go among..."

She is not a doctor.

To even quote "first person ownership" here is to disavow Statement Analysis and foolishly attempt to force something that does not exist.

It is embarrassing to read.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Letter:
Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and,
we, women, are refusing to go among those animals, especially from Africa.

The Sheep:
Why the change? Also, if she's a doctor, we'd expect "we...refuse to treat". But she doesn't; she says we, women are refusing to "go among..."

----

a) How could they "refuse to treat" someone that is "refusing treatment"?

b) Is ducking from "syphilis-infected urine" considered part of the job for "female staff"? I hope not, and so I can see why their "refusing to go among those animals," is done as "women", not "staff".

Peter Hyatt said...

Begin with Islamic supremacy and how it works itself out psychologically.

Try this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260495/frustrated-muslims-cant-stop-killing-jews…-and-daniel-greenfield

Then, a bit more:

http://10news.dk/?p=675


Lastly, check out what inbreeding has done, over many many years, within a culture which ascribes to first cousin marriage. This is at the same site.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Letter:
Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and,
we, women, are refusing to go among those animals, especially from Africa.

The Sheep:
Why the change? Also, if she's a doctor, we'd expect "we...refuse to treat". But she doesn't; she says we, women are refusing to "go among..."

----

a) How could they "refuse to treat" someone that is "refusing treatment"?

b) Is ducking from "syphilis-infected urine" considered part of the job for "female staff"? I hope not, and so I can see why their "refusing to go among those animals," is done as "women", not "staff".

Juliet said...

Ps - I am not meaning to imply that our facilities and way of doing things is the universally best and correct way - indeed some have it, that squatting, health-wise is the much better way; I could care less if people want to squat on a toilet seat, just so long as it isn't mine, and no-one expects me to do that.

This is getting weird, especially for someone who was brought up not to use the word 'toilet' - what a rebel the years create. :)

Peter Hyatt said...

Had she felt the need to assert that she was a doctor would have been worthy of analysis as being unnecessary.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=684_1445692570 Bloody child abuse holiday. This is not limited to a few nor to a single country.
It's cultural and signifies how desensitized they are to violence.

Anonymous said...

There have been no Lassies portrayed as male in any movies or TV shows. I'd guess that, if there were, the name would be changed to "Laddie". It is true that all Lassies have been male collies and I just discovered that one of the male Lassies was named "Boy". So guess what, Peter. When you wrote "What's that Lassie, Boy?", you might have been spot on.

Ah, the things you learn here at this blog.

Peter Hyatt said...

Matt,

There was nothing offensive in your posts.

Peter.

Peter Hyatt said...

They did use male dogs! :)

Juliet said...

Peter, did you find it not worthy of analysis because to you it was too easy, and obviously not written by a doctor? It took me a while to figure it out. I would be interested to know if the conclusion that it was written by a cleaner is likely to be correct - or is it no good because it is arrived at through too much conjecture, regardless of whether it was written by a cleaner, or not?

Sus said...

Juliet,
I take Peter to mean if the author had asserted she was a doctor, that would be worthy of notice. There would be some reason she is doing that. I hope Peter corrects me if I'm understanding incorrectly.

He said earlier to look if she uses medical terms. She does sometimes, and Peter highlighted those. I do question some of her terms, though. "Exotic" diseases is one instance. I was surprised a doctor would mention "open TB" and then not follow with accommodations they had to make for that. Especially considering the tone of the letter. Or as she mentioned AIDS, if rape was on her mind, wouldn't that be the time to say it? Medical professionals usually correlate TB to crowded living conditions and AIDS to sex. That was snark. :-)

I also noticed the change from "female staff" to "we women." It is the female staff who Muslims refuse to be treated by. Staff is a working professional group. It is we women who refuse to go among the animals. Women no longer gives the impression of a work group. And she no longer speaks of treatment, but going among. I think this is a nurses aide or attendant.

Sus said...

I don't think these things are a coincidence: Peter says to look at context.

-The Czech Republic has always discouraged immigration.
-Polls show 94% of Czechs are opposed to migrants.
-The anti-immigration parties in the Czech Republic are actively working and advertising against migration.
-At the September 2015 meeting of the Czech nurses association, the membership was warned against releasing migrant health information.
-This letter, even though about migrants in Germany, is written by a Czech.
-Latest "breaking news" on Austrian gun sales is from a Czech TV report. It is based on the phone interview of one gun shop.

I hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but I think I see a pattern coming out of the Czech Republic.

Sus said...

Anon said, "Ah, the things you learn here at this blog."

No kidding! Peter said something about Daniel Murphy I didn't know. I just thought he was some jerk that hit too many homeruns against my Cubbies. :-)

Juliet said...

Sus - thanks - I thought he meant the letter was not worth analysing, but it's not the clearest, to me.

I think what she is saying there is not true to begin with, as she claims it is only female staff who Muslims refuse to be treated by - if she was really there, she would know that's not the case, that women will refuse treatment from male staff, and that some Muslim men insist their women are treated only by females. She des not specify that men or women refuse to be treated by women - she is trying to place safe, as she does not know if that's the case, and so she says 'Muslims' to cover that possibility, too.

'Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe, do not know how to treat.' I think a nurse, being round during consultant rounds, would be aware that European countries are well equipped to deal with immigrant disease, including all manner of tropical 'exotic' disease, and parasites, because she would know that one patient or another had been referred to one of the specialist clinics. A nurse, or an assistant would know this, because always they are discussing patients, or are in close proximity when others do.

I think if she was anything to do with a medical team or staff, coming into contact with doctors and patients on the ward or in consulting rooms that, considering she's already so angry, she would be utterly incensed by the knowledge that some Muslim doctors refuse to treat or have anything to do with patients who have sexually transmitted diseases, because they, even with the increased workload, would be leaving others to deal with that. If not in her hospital, then another there would be at least one such doctor of whom she knew. She doesn't know that - I can't imagine that she wouldn't, or that she would not be haranguing them for it, if she did. She doesn't come across as someone who has been on the wards I'm a caring capacity - she expresses no care, compassion or concern, only condemnation and self-interest. Even for the children, there is no concern - they are just an inconvenient security problem. There's no care about her towards anyone, so I can't see her in any type of nursing or assistant role. If she has been on the wards, amongst the patients, it is as a cleaner, in my opinion - an overworked, underpaid cleaner.

Juliet said...

Place safe - play safe

Juliet said...

I'm a caring capacity - in a caring capacity

Lol, stupid auto correct.

ima.grandma said...

Juliet said
ima.grandma - sorry to be such a conjecturer.

Don't apologize. I'm reminded of the saying: anyone who doesn't think there are two sides to an argument is probably in one.

Juliet said...

That's a new one to me, ima.grandma - I like that - thanks.

ima.grandma said...

My gkids are always saying "grandma, you're so corny"

But I tell you what, every single saying my mama, gma, and ggma ever taught me still holds true today.

Peter Hyatt said...

My iPhone abbreviated typing caused my brevity above.

Regarding the author of the letter:

We must use only general principles due to translation issues.
We must stay within principle and not seek to make analysis fit our opinion.

Regarding being a doctor, had the writer felt the need to prove she was a doctor, this would have been an issue of sensitivity for exploration as to why she had a need to persuade.

I have found a website in which European women wrote in their criminal experiences with those ideologists who hold to "supremacy", including their supremacy to women.

I found that one did not come from experiential memory.

I found that the others did.

Analysis does not put narrative above principle. There are always times when we do not like the analysis findings, or perhaps they do not agree with the politically correct narrative. It matters not.

I let others duke that out, but truth matters.

I show, for example, that Patsy Ramsey was deceptive. This triggers a very difficult situation for some fans of analysis who believe an intruder did it.

They have seen, over and over, how successful the principles are, yet here, feel a "pressure" or "conflict" within themselves: do they continue reading Statement Analysis?
Can they dismiss everything they have learned to fit a narrative?

It reminds me of the Hillary Clinton fans.

She is a pathological liar who lies even when there is no cause; lie after lie after lie. Yet, "I'm going to vote for her because she has women body parts" is all that is left. After "well everyone lies" (where does that lead?) and "well, Trump lied" (surprise, surprise) I have more respect for someone who admits the truth.

The first time Lance Armstrong failed to deny PEDs, years ago, I knew. It is easy to despise him now, forgetting how inspirational he was on the bike: those were heady times for American sports and the one on one bike battles, were, quite likely, between two doped riders.

I have always been cautious with allowing my children to look up to someone in the public domain, and even for me, a cautious father, I was wrong.

I felt very badly about this initially, and knew that if I say even to myself, "well, everyone is using..." is to shrink from the truth for the purpose of narrative.

My sons had cool demeanors when I first told them he was a drug using cheater, but this cool exterior only delayed the inevitable negative feelings they felt. They were young then, and impressionable. Sadly, it increased their cynicism overall. When I heard this in their language, I had to remind them that even in politics, there are men of character and principle, with noble and right motives for office.

It is not an easy sell, today.

Yes, I see the destruction of Europe, and no, I do not have answers. Their religion has its own god, and their god is making demands upon them that will destroy them. I can hope they will, one day, recover themselves.

Peter

Juliet said...

Peter, I wonder what did Pilate mean when he asked, 'What is truth?'

This question presents itself to me, so often - out of nowhere it comes - I can entertain myself with it for hours yet still don't begin to know if there is a satisfactory answer to it.

Juliet said...

As the saying goes, there are two sides to every story; they may be equally true, but sometimes we feel an obligation to choose, and in so doing, seem to discount the other truth, that which is less comfortable to accommodate, or accept. It is very difficult - we sometimes feel pressured to make choices along the lines of 'if you're not for us, you're against us' (not only politically but in other spheres of our common and personal lives, too) and in so doing cannot but help become compromisers of the truth. So, always, 'What IS truth?'

Sus said...

I agree that words and meaning may be lost in the translation. For instance, I would say "He had to have surgery." That may be translated to "He had to undergo surgery." The word "exotic" to describe disease is probably another example. I will lay off of it.

But, there are certain words and principles I think we can rely on.

One is where she begins. Where she begins is what is important to her, what she wants her audience to know. That is to say we had a meeting AT THE HOSPITAL and as things are, they are NONSUSTAINABLE. She is predicting a health crisis.

Second, the names of places would not be lost in translation. When she speaks of the diseases, AIDS, open TB, syphilis, and exotic diseases, she says we in "EUROPE do not know how to treat them." She is thinking of migrants in Europe, the entire crisis. I think this shows an awareness of her audience, a scare tactic across the continent.

Last, she includes employment figures in what is supposed to be a personal and frightening experience to her. That sounds like a play to an audience to me.

I don't doubt there are major problems with the refugees coming into Europe. It is a cultural and religious clash. What's getting to me is that it's difficult to find actual facts now. The news has become inflammatory rhetoric rather than actual facts. Give me statistics rather than, "Muslim men are coming in hordes to rape your women."

Juliet said...

I am suspicious of statistics when taken as undisputed evidence or fact in regard to anything - they are easily manipulated to fit any type of agenda - some people might even argue that is what statisticians are for:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

I don't know, I just don't believe a statistic is always or necessarily a true reflection - statistics can lie and be made to support the outcome required by whoever is hiring the statistician.

Peter Hyatt said...

Sus, I respect you taking 2nd and 3rd looks at language. I do not shrink back from duty on fake hate whether I agree with the narrative or not.

What I ask you to do because you express interest, is related to the work we do in analysis.
People do what they believe. When an ideology is universal, many people, but not all, will act upon it. If the ideology calls for the subjugation of others, learn in history if this is true, or if it is a few fringe psychos at work.
Learn what Islam teaches. Learn what scholars say about conflicting verses of mercy versus jihad. Do what you learned here: listen to them.
Learn the extreme numbers of those who commit these crimes quoting the Koran. Is it a fringe few? Is it a few mentally ill?

Is it restricted to a single country, where one culture's traits are predominant, or is there a universality about it? Is Islamic violence something that is just Saudi in nature, or is it the same, country to country to country?

When we fought the Nazis, we learned their ideology. Only Barak Obama has said that crimes committed in the name of Islam are not related to Islam. He has erased the word "Islam" from training manuals (his order).

Do followers of this ideology pose a threat to you, or your loved ones?
Read articles with what you have learned about S/A principles.
See videos, en masse. Do they reflect MSM?

Websites like www.jihadwatch.org state their agenda: to protect freedom from Islam.
Other websites do the same and will post statistics (I took the time to work verification, last year, because I thought they were far too extreme: they are not. They may be under reported).

We now see that German's media has admitted withholding criminal information from the public, and gave its reason. We also learned that Merkel deliberately deceived her country regarding the numbers. See her own words.

Go from country to country, looking for news accounts. Listen to the words.

This is an ideology that should unite conservatives and liberals in America because it opposes freedom.

One homosexual killed might be attributed to "homophobia" or a hatred (my opinion) of homosexuals. Yet, one per week, video taped, or even one per day reported, consistently from land to land where the executioners quote the very same passages of the Koran is a pattern.

How does the teaching on women impact boys? How does it impact day to day life?

What do you make of the official Swedish crime statistics? You said, "give me statistics", so even the official crime statistics from their own government show: They are the rape capital of the West EVEN when they take 2nd generation Islam and classify it as "Swede";

Read cases. Read what judges said to and about victims and Islamic perpetrators.

Learn why those people make a very big deal about hosting a cartoon event and what are the consequences if we yield to this principle of Sharia.

History.

The World Trade Centers.

Why is Sweden in a rape epidemic?? Read the government's reasons and ask yourself if this is an explanation that is reliable, or do they have a desperate need to persuade?

The cruelty: is it actually and literally prescribed in the Koran? Or, is the video evidence just a pyscho here and there? I use the phrase "Elvis sighting" to mean just a fringe mentally disturbed nut and not a movement.

We are looking at an ideology that if just 1% of Muslims follow it, it represents an enormous army of jihadists.

Why would a country screen passengers on a plane, but not those who enter a country?
Why did MSM report "women and children" even though it was 70% to 90% male?

Do the demands of Islamists walking (literally) into Europe, match the supremacist ideology?

You'll get it.

When you do, you'll likely to wish you hadn't, but you will be welcomed to the fight for freedom.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

"What is truth?" as a cynical dismissive that truth can actually exist. It appeals to those who wish to dismiss that absolutes can exist in our world (which is a claim of absolute knowledge itself). Bob Dylan may have lifted "Disease of Conceit" from this.

This was a criminal hearing and trial--Pilate examine the accused. Since there is no king but Ceasar (as Herod toyed with treason, himself, the little king), this was to tear allegiances --

. Thou sayest that I am a king.

Although Pilate had already learned, from the former answer, that Christ claims for himself some sort of kingdom, yet now Christ asserts the same thing more firmly; and, not satisfied with this, he makes an additional statement, which serves for a seal, as it were, to ratify what he had said. Hence we infer, that the doctrine concerning Christ’s kingdom is of no ordinary importance, since he has deemed it worthy of so solemn an affirmation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. What is truth? Some think that Pilate puts this question through curiosity, as irreligious men are sometimes accustomed to be eagerly desirous of learning something that is new to them, and yet do not know why they wish it; for they intend nothing more than to gratify their ears. For my own part, I rather think that it is an expression of disdain; for Pilate thought himself highly insulted when Christ represented him as destitute of all knowledge of the truth. Here we see in Pilate a disease which is customary among men. Though we are all aware of our ignorance, yet there are few who are willing to confess it; and the consequence is, that the greater part of men reject the true doctrine. Afterwards, the Lord, who is the Teacher of the humble, blinds the proud, and thus inflicts on them the punishment which they deserve. From the same pride arises such disdain, that they do not choose to submit to learn, because all lay claim to sagacity and acuteness of mind. Truth is believed to be a common thing; but God declares, on the contrary, that it far exceeds the capacity of the human understanding.

The same thing happens in other matters. The principal articles of theology are, the curse pronounced on the human race, the corruption of nature, the mortification of the flesh, the renewal of the life, the reconciliation effected by free grace through the only sacrifice, the imputation of righteousness, by means of which a sinner is accepted by God, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. These, being paradoxes, are disdainfully rejected by the ordinary understanding of men. Few, therefore, make progress in the school of God, because we scarcely find one person in ten who attends to the first and elementary instructions; and why is this, but because they measure the secret wisdom of God by their own understanding?

That Pilate spoke in mockery is evident from this circumstance, that he immediately goes out. In short, he is angry with Christ for boasting that he brings forward the truth, which formerly lay hidden in darkness. Yet this indignation of Pilate shows that wicked men never reject the doctrine of the Gospel so spitefully as not to be somewhat moved by its efficacy; for, though Pilate did not proceed so far as to become humble and teachable, yet he is constrained to feel some inward compunction.

Peter Hyatt said...

In the recent submission of women's accounts, I have found one, thus far, that did not come from experiential memory. Next, we must learn if it is claimed to be from experiential memory, or memory from what another reported, or what one read.

The original article: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6753/germany-migrants-demands

Ask yourself:

Even in second language; does the author connect herself to the experience?

does the language match the experience or, is the author more concerned with her own reputation and appearance?

Outside of it, do the claims match what you know, psychology, about supremacist ideology?

for first hand grasp by a psychologist who had success in mitigating anger and impulse control among Muslim youth, see the powerful research done by Nicolai Sennels here:

He and I disagree on issues as we come from it from different perspectives but I am learning a lot from him:

http://10news.dk

Scroll down specifically to inbreeding, and anything that has to do with psychology in his articles.

My personal experiences are all the same themes that the women submit, and that Dr. Sennels has found. The interviews and answers and affirmations all sound the same, even though the ideologists I dealt with her from a particular country in Africa, and not from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and so on.

The culture is very different, but the ideology is exact. The intepretation of the koan is exact

The interpretation of the Koran only becomes cloudy for Americans trying to dismiss the violence.

Sennels says it is the only religion in the world that where the person becomes more devout, they become more violent.

Research also found more jihadist to be from middle or upper class, rather than impoverished.

Next, is there a basis or ideology that causes Islamists in their own countries and in europe, to have extremely low employment rates?

Most should be able to answer this last question.

Peter

Sus said...

Peter,
This is what troubles me. Rape has been used as a fear tactic throughout history. It is used in war to show complete control and conquering of the enemy. We Americans are not innocent. I'm sure you are aware of how rape was used by the Northern forces during the Civil War, and rapes during the Vietnam Conflict. Heck, Eisenhower had condoms passed out to his troops during WWII.

Rape is also used as a scare tactic, to infuse fear of groups of people. You surely know from American history that Native Americans were always trying to steal white women. And black men were always leering and at couldn't wait to get their hands on a white woman. If the black man didn't actually rape a white woman, he sure wanted to, and needed to be lynched for it.

I can't help but see the same rhetoric in speaking of Musljms. Rather than speaking of actual events, I hear "they want to rape white women." "Their ideology tells them to rape white women."

Ok, so Sweden's rape statistics. I have looked at them. There is no denying part of the rise is caused by the migrant influx. But there is more to it.

The rise began when Sweden changed how they record rapes.
1. They record every REPORTED rape, founded or not.
2. Their definition of rape is broader than any other nation in the world. Penetration does not have to occur. Sexual harassment falls into the category of rape.
3. Every incident is counted. For example, a couple dates for a year. They break up with hard feelings. She says she felt forced to have sex through that year. Yep, in Sweden that's 365 counts of rape. Remember...reports.
4. There are no recorded statistics on perpetrators since 2004. Any stats are simply estimates. They are based upon what the natural curve would be by the number of migrants, built upon the stats from 2004.
5. This is the reason I do think a disproportionate number of rapes are by migrants. Though Sweden does not reveal the perpetrators' race, they do track the victims. There is no negligible difference between the number of migrants reporting rape and Swedish citizens. In other words, migrant women report being raped just as often as Swedish women. Common sense tells me migrant women are probably raped by migrant men. And in their home countries they would not have been able to report it. They would have been found guilty. Isn't this hope for assimilation?

That's my take for now. I'll look at things. I do. I'm just one on letting fear of other groups of people rule me. I think that causes the problems in this world. I'm not saying I like their ideology. I think there are other ways to change rather than hard-nosed public policy. Only my take and I've been wrong a lot. :-)

Sus said...

Whoops...should say "I'm just NOT one on letting fear of other groups of people rule me."

Juliet said...

Thanks for the response, Peter - it's interesting as a commentary, though I find those hard to understand. I find The question takes on a life of its own, outside of the narrative. To me, it seems both rhetorical, querying and self-querying - as though Pilate was unintentionally doing the world a favour, through asking it.

Anonymous said...

"Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe, do not know how to treat them."

On the bus, I try to take a seat as far away from the Africans as I can. I do not want to be infected, and I don't trust them, I don't know what might "provoke" them. Life is to short.

Perhaps the letter said something more like "diseases that we, in Europe neither, do not know how to cure".

"Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who for 800 Euros cleans every day for years, and then meets young men in the hallways who just wait with their hand outstretched, want everything for free, and when they don’t get it they throw a fit."

Compare what the professor said to what others, like Juliet, say.

I think the author found consolation in his kind words.

How did the author know that the cleaner made "exactly" €800? I think that's the part time (50%) minimum wage in Germany.

Juliet said...

Sus @ 2.03 - I second all that.

Anonymous said...

Have you noticed, by the way, how the Muslims are constantly spitting?

It could be caused by hypersalivation, or by contempt.

Anonymous said...

I can't help but see the same rhetoric in speaking of Musljms. Rather than speaking of actual events, I hear "they want to rape white women." "Their ideology tells them to rape white women."

Does it not matter, whether you teach your children that rape is wrong, or that non-muslim women are whores, who will be burned in sperm?

Who is the more likely rapist:

a) You do not "want" to rape "white" women. Your religion tells you not to. You are not a racist. Your friends, even your family would turn their back at you.

b) You DO want to rape "white" women. Your religion commends you to. You are a racist. Your friends and family would approve.

Anonymous said...

I can't help but see the same rhetoric in speaking of Musljms. Rather than speaking of actual events, I hear "they want to rape white women." "Their ideology tells them to rape white women."

Does it not matter, whether you teach your children that rape is wrong, or that non-Muslim women are whores, who will be burned in sperm?

Who is the more likely to rape:

a) You do not want to rape "white" women. Your religion tells you not to. You are not a racist. Your friends, even your family would turn their back at you.

b) You do want to rape "white" women. Your religion commends you to. You are a racist. Your friends and family would approve.

ima.grandma said...

Please see the below snipped statements from Dr. Nicolai Sennels.
Peter introduced him in a previous post. I've been reading his articles since. People fascinate me. Who they are ~ Why they are. Some of the articles on jihdwatch hit me with a tough reality check. Sometimes its too much for me to absorb but this one is exceptional. It contains a great informational graphic.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/nicolai-sennels-psychology-why-islam-creates-monsters

""One could talk about two groups of psychological mechanisms, that both singly and combined increase violent behaviour. One group is mainly connected with religion, which aims at indoctrinating Islamic values in children as early as possible and with whatever means necessary, including violence and intimidation. One can understand a Muslim parent’s concern about his offspring’s religious choices, because the sharia orders the death penalty for their children, should they pick another religion than their parents. The other group of mechanisms are more cultural and psychological. These cultural psychological mechanisms are a natural consequence of being influenced by a religion like Islam and stemming from a 1,400 year old tribal society with very limited freedom to develop beyond what the religion allows."

I am deeply disturbed by the reality of whats going on the world. The rape crisis and the psychological effects on the women will forever be. The damage will become generational. I want to close my eyes to it!

Anonymous said...

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief." This happens a lot, so know your Koran.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace.
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.
The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met."
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people. An interesting side note is verse 7:99, which says that the only people who feel secure from Allah are actually those who will perish in Hell.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

Peter Hyatt said...

I have an article on why Nazis hated Jews...the blaming for the Treaty of Versaille was not credible.

Anonymous said...

Mohammad sets example for all Islam men: Pedophilia

Muhammad's sexual antics are an embarrassment to those Muslims who are aware of them. This is particularly so for their prophet's consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years of age. The thought of a 53-year-old man sleeping and bathing with a young girl is intensely unpleasant and it reflects the disgusting character of a sexual glutton rather than a holy man. Critics even allege that Muhammad was a pedophile.

Some Muslims respond by denying the hadith itself, which is a mistake. The accounts of Muhammad sleeping with a 9-year-old are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of tradition and did not become controversial until social mores began to change with the modern age.

The charge of pedophilia: Technically, Muhammad did have a sexual relationship with a child, but Aisha was also the youngest of his twelve wives. Zaynab was in her 30's when she attracted the unquenchable lust of the prophet. We don't know the age of Muhammad's sex slaves. They may or may not have been as young as Aisha, but there is no point in speculating.

Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur'an (65:4) relates rules for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is established to determine that the woman is not pregnant. But the same rule applies to "those too who have not had their courses," meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate. (In our opinion, this would have been a great time for Allah to have said something else instead like, "a real man is one who marries an actual, grown woman"... but that's just us).

Thanks to Muhammad's extremely poor judgment (at best) and explicit approval of pedophilia, sex with children became deeply ingrained in the Islamic tradition. For many centuries, Muslim armies would purge Christian and Hindu peasant villages of their menfolk and send the women and children to harems and the thriving child sex slave markets deep in the Islamic world.

When it comes to child marriage, contemporary clerics warn fellow Muslims against succumbing to the disapproval of the Christian West: "It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”

The Ayatollah Khomeini, who married a 12-year-old girl, even gave his consent to using infants for sexual pleasure (although warning against full penetration until the baby is a few years older). In April, 2010, a 13-year-old Yemeni girl died from injuries suffered to her womb during "intercourse".

Some clerics show relative mercy on underage girls by advocating a process known as "thighing" (also known as child molestation in the West). According to a recent fatwa (number 23672), an imam answers this question: "My parents married me to a young girl who hasn't yet reached puberty. How can I enjoy her sexually?" by telling the 'man' that he may "hug her, kiss her, and ejaculate between her legs."

A prominent member of Saudi Arabia's highest religious council said in 2012 that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle," then went on to explain that intercourse may occur whenever "they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the man."

Muhammad's penchant for girls so much younger than him was such that at least two of his father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Omar, the first two Caliphs) were actually younger than him as well. This disappointing pattern is very much at odds with the sort of sexual discipline that one might expect of a true "prophet of God."


Peter Hyatt said...

This discussion is getting fascinating.

Once someone begins to dig in, they are often 'hooked' and feel a bit of resentment for having, perhaps, not been told the truth, or actually lied to by their Muslim neighbor.

We had a local who was permitted to refuse to serve Jews without repercussion from the company. He refused to shake hands or touch a woman, which was not problematic, though some women were offended. But to refuse to serve Jews was provocative.

Secular Muslims are in a curious position. They know that Sharia means that they will be targeted, but they are given a chance to embrace their religion before death, while others, as we saw last week, if they do renounce their religion and repeat the Allah and Mohammad phrase, still are often executed. This week's killing was particularly brutal and the beheading of those who said Mohammad was his messenger seemed surprised to still be killed.

Supremacy: An Arab Catholic watched as German volunteers chanted "no borders, no nations, no racists..." and then began to cheer as the migrants sang.

The applause for the migrants' singing must have been quite amusing to the Islamists.

They were singing about Jihadi death to the Germans.

Peter

ima.grandma said...

My heart is so sad

ima.grandma said...

I don't know why my head didn't click until just now. Remember the beheading that happened in my city? The building the company is housed in is about ten blocks from me. I still remember hearing the sirens.

Immediately, I mean immediately, all the local media we're reporting NO ISIS involvement. The Powers-that-Be even got involved. I call BS on it! I talked to so many people that knew of him. He was a lunatic. Yes, but he was also an active 'wanna-be' Muslim who showed signs of violence. He attended the mosques, He frequently watched ISIS videos. Etc, etc, etc.

But did the media report those things? No. There were a couple of slight mentions which were quickly played down. Peter, you're correct. These things are happening here. Could America become the next Great Migration?

Anonymous said...

Why We Fight Islam
By: Nicolai Sennels

I was recently asked: Why fight Islam? The short answer is because Islam fights us and since it knows no borders and it knows no mercy, it will keep fighting us until we are defeated or we – hopefully – stop them forever.

The goal in Islam is world domination and a central part of every Muslim’s religious practise is to spread his faith with all possible means until it covers the Earth completely. Ever since the 6th century when Islam’s founder and self-proclaimed prophet, Mohammed (who maybe never existed), set out to conquer neighbouring towns, killing, maiming, raping and enslaving scores, Islam has spread its suppressing and destructive doctrine as far as it could. Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist countries and cultures have been crushed by relentless waves of jihadis (Arabic: mujahideens), leaving up to 270 million non-Muslims dead, mostly killed in exceedingly barbaric ways. The recent Islamic takeover of areas in Africa, the Middle East and Western cities that until recently were not under Sharia, is not a new phenomena. It is just another phase of a 1,400 year old war against non-Muslims, with the aim of consolidating Muslim power over non-Muslims, and Islamic rule over democracy and human rights. With millions of Muslims fleeing to the West from their self-created atrocities, Islam is about to spread to countries that has been almost Muslim-free. Citizens of Eastern Europe and Baltic States who think that West Europe can handle the problem without their help are naive and lack solidarity: it is time for the democratic world to stand together. Since the nature of Islam is to eventually spread everywhere, nobody is safe anyway.

Anonymous said...

What do they want?
The final goal of Islam is a worldwide Caliphate ruled by Sharia. The world that Islam’s followers dream of is a planet ordered after the wishes of Allah and his prophet. In such a world there is no Free Speech since the slightest criticism of the system is to be punished by death. There is not even Freedom of Thought, since everybody has to believe in Allah and Mohammed as his prophet, pray five times a day, eat halal, and kill family members and others flinching from the Islamic rules. According to Sharia, women are effectively the property of their male family members and men are allowed to have four wives and beat them all. Jews and Christians will be spared death if they pay a protection tax, jizya, and accept the status as dhimmis, second class citizens whom Muslims are allowed to abuse and rape on a whim. People not believing in the Old Testament – Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others – will have the choice between being killed or converting to Islam (which constitutes psychological rape and forces one to live a strict Muslim life, including killing other non-Muslims).

A society where science and research must be aligned with the world view of a crazed pedophile living in the 6th century (Mohammed married and started fondeling Aisha when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine) will of course not be able to establish a functioning stable economy, political system or the comforts of modern medicine, technology and infrastructure.

When it comes to human freedom and rights, the Soviet Union was a utopia compared to any Islamic caliphate, which can best be compared to the joy- and loveless, totalitarian worlds of anger depicted by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of The Rings and in George Lucas’ Star Wars. Should our civilization collapse under Islamic aggression – aided by our own political correctness, cowardice, laziness – the only known place with intelligent life in this universe will be a dark and destroyed planet drifting through space, populated by billions of mostly inbred humans living in total misery, enslaved by the freedom-hating, death-loving, brutal, mind-numbing Sharia. What tragedy could be worse than that?

Anonymous said...

Can it happen to us?
Well, the millions of non-Muslims who used to live where Islam now rules probably asked themselves that same question… And yes, it will also happen to us, if we do not stop Islam. Western intelligence services increasingly warn that thousands of Muslims outside and inside our own countries are preparing themselves to fulfill their religious duty.

Meanwhile we settle with hoping that Muslims will be as pacified by our nursing welfare states and reassuring media as we have become ourselves.

Islam knows no borders and no mercy, and if our generation does not stop them, the next generation will not even have a chance to make the attempt. Our grandfathers defeated Nazism, our parents’ generation overcame Communism. The great challenge of our time is Islam – an enemy of freedom more present, fanatic and vast in numbers than any totalitarian system before it. This enemy is different than anything we have encountered before: You can not intimidate an enemy who loves death more than life.

Our police is already unable to uphold the law in many of the Muslim ghettos mushrooming everywhere, even in smaller towns. Ever more regular outbreaks of what can best be described as minor incidents of civil war give us a taste of what is waiting for us later this decade (according to Al Qaeda’s prophetic plan made in the 1990s, this will happen in 2016 – Arab governments should be toppled from around 2010 and an Islamic state was planned to be established from 2013…).

Muslim dominated areas are increasing in numbers and boldness – encouraged by the lack of consequence from Western authorities – and it is only a matter of time before they evolve into permanently warring Muslim enclaves fighting for unconstitutional, religious rights. Through our self-inflicted invasion we are creating our own Gaza Strips, which are already spawning an unending stream of attacks against non-Muslims and the surrounding non-Islamic society. Muslim immigration is crushing our economy, undermining our hard-won safety, attacking free speech and increasingly changing physical areas of our cities into unrecognizable, dangerous no-go sharia-zones.

Muslims believing in jihad are neither extremists, nor a minority. Muslims believing in the obligation to wage jihad to fulfill their religious duty are following mainstream fundamentals of Islam as it is clearly written unambiguously and repeatedly in the Quran and Mohammed’s equally holy life story, the Hadiths. 75 percent of the roughly 56 million Muslims living in Europe believe that the Quran must be taken literally and 65 percent think that the Sharia is more important than democratic laws. 80 percent of young Turks in Holland believe that Jihad against non-Muslims is fine. 27 percent of all French youth and 14 percent of all British youths – presumably including the vast majority of young Muslims in these countries – support the Islamic State. What do these numbers mean? They mean that the countless Muslim ghettos eating up Western towns and cities are populated with hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of people supporting the jihadi doctrine. What will happen when they feel strong enough to destroy and overtake our societies? Will they remain passive and peaceful, or will they seize the chance? Many, surely, will do the latter.

Instead of being thankful for the safety and welfare provided by hard working Western tax payers, Muslims in Europe have raised an army of jihadis supporting Islam’s genocidal agenda.

Anonymous said...

What can we do?
Or rather: What must we do, in order to prevail for the sake of humanity and future generations?

Through democratic means, we must mobilize the immense power and organisational talent that lies behind the creation of the most free, rich, and technologically advanced societies in world history and direct it towards our own survival. If we manage to awaken this sleeping giant before our countries are destroyed by barbarians – just like all other high cultures before ours – we will be able to defeat the hordes of inbred fanatics without panic or hate. During this crucial historical period we must not lose our human face and destroy the very values we are trying to protect. We must stay honest, outspoken and engage with realistic means and force, while staying focused on long term win-win solutions. By approaching the problem without fear, but only with mental surplus and a broad overview, we can succeed while creating only a minimum amount of unavoidable harm. Reacting with totalitarian measures such as banning Free Speech to protect “social cohesion” or succumbing to immature emotions for revenge alone will not benefit our cause.

Peaceful societies with social values and a high degree of morality have been exploited to a devastating degree – economically, culturally and demographically – by myriads of Muslim immigrants and refugees.

Modern welfare and decades of peace have put our survival instinct into hibernation. This makes it difficult for us to understand that we will not overcome this historical challenge without the use of real force. A gentle approach that might be affordable under healthy demographic conditions is suicidal when confronted with a weapon of mass-destruction like Islam. We have come to this point because for too long, we have taken freedom for granted.

Muslims will experience our outspoken honesty and rational self-defensive measures as an attack against their religious rights and as a call for God-given obligation to defend their religion with all possible means. When Muslims decide that their religion is under attack, all sorts of violent Quranic paragraphs are activated. Securing ourselves and our descendants from this cancer already gnawing at every vital part of our societies requires immensely persistent political and public determination. Fighting back will provoke our self-proclamed enemy and strengthen their world famous, childish, anger and victim mentality. But there is no reason to shy away from confrontation, as there is no way around a real clash anyway – and the sooner it comes, the fewer in numbers and less organised they will be. Risking a few Facebook friends or a promotion at work by joining a demonstration or even speaking out publicly is a small price compared to how grave the danger is and what will be lost forever if we remain passive in these crucial years.

The danger of Islam is very real, it will not go away by itself. Just look at history.

It is our duty to fulfill the responsibility that our forefathers courageously fulfilled, often with great costs: to protect and pass on our hard won values and freedom to future generations, allowing them to pursuit happiness and a chance to develop and live their fullest human potential.

Standing up against Islam’s soldiers and against political correctness activates and increases the most noble human qualities: honesty, bravery, gut feeling, cooperation, hard work, intelligence, and compassion. It is no surprise that one meets the best people in the counter-Islam movement.

Anonymous said...


It is clear that we can not trust our media and present politicians to give the facts about Islam and the consequences of Muslim mass-immigration. So it is up to us – the People – to speak the obvious truths, tell our stories, spread important news, facts and statistics and inspire our co-voters to elect responsible leaders. Using Facebook, Twitter and other modern means of mass-communication in good style (a handful of Islam-related posts per week is enough) is easy and a must-do. The same goes for sending articles and complaints to journalists and politicians. Writing letters to the newspapers sharpens the mind and arguments of ourselves and others, and even if the letters are not printed, they make the editors aware of what their readers find interesting – and what their newspapers therefore have to report in order to sell. We should protest loudly and publicly if our children’s schools lie to our offspring about Islam or consciously start serving halal. That same reaction should happen if our local planning committee considers allowing mosques or “Islamic cultural centers” – which effectively function as propaganda hubs for the Quran’s genocidal message that control and radicalize local Muslims. Encouraging and supporting political parties, organisations and individuals standing up for Free Speech, democracy and human rights by taking the risks included in openly opposing Islam, Muslim immigration and political correctness is natural. If you would like to further develop your protective abilities, get strong, learn martial arts, and consider joining the National Guard. If you are involved in political activities, keep bureaucracy to a minimum, become real friends and do not compete with your fellow counter-jihad colleagues. We should be glad that people work differently: the problem is many sided and the world needs many different voices in order to understand and realize what must be done.

Start by informing yourself by reading blogs like EuropeNews.dk, JihadWatch.org, 10News.dk, VladTepesBlog.com, TheReligionOfPeace.com. There are also a considerable amount of Facebook groups and Twitters worth following – also in your own language. Use these as a basis for spreading and translating important facts to your countrymen and women, including media and law makers. Join demonstrations (and bring your friends), wear t-shirts with freedom-related slogans and learn a few important statistics and Quran quotes.

Anonymous said...

Fighting ignorance, promoting courage
Using democratic tools like these is nothing else than peacefully removing ignorance which is the cause of suffering in so many areas of life – ignorance that in this case can lead our societies into total destruction and our future generations into slavery.

Inspire others with your own brave example and avoid anger: we can hate the system, but we can not hate the people. As beings mainly behave the way they feel, we can only wish them good feelings and a minimum of necessary, pedagogical harm. Remember that Muslims are the first victims of Islam, as their system is full of rules and brutal punishments aimed at themselves. Muslims are the real islamophobes: only fear can explain peoples’ submission to such a joyless, unfree and painful system, forcing them to think and behave in ways that creates ever more suffering in their own lives.

Until Muslims free themselves from the chains of sharia, we must make sure that the trouble that their religion brainwashes and forces them to make, happens from a sufficiently safe distance. Therefore we must stop non-Western (Muslim) immigration, and make it as difficult as possible for followers of the religion of submission to live here by banning any kind of Islamization. If they want mosques, halal, prayer rooms, cousin-marriages, and Islamic holidays, they must settle elsewhere. We do not want any mosques or minarets, no public or foreign funding of Islamic organisations or imams. All Muslims coming to our lands must actively and publicly reject the violent and criminal passages of the Islamic scriptures. Performing or promoting jihad is treason and should result in loss of citizenship. This means that we would probably have to find ways to accommodate large amounts of people (see above statistical examples from Holland, France and England) in or near Islamic countries where they do not suffer from living outside their cultural circle. The only win-win solution is that we use the money we save by deporting jihadis (each one who usually costs houndreds of thousands of euros in expences for welfare and law enforcement) to pay third world countries for having fewer children (thus limiting over-population, another cause of enormous suffering and millions of refugees) and for accommodating the world’s Muslim refugees and our deported supporters of jihad.

In this way can we save humanity from what is probably the greatest catastrophe in the history of mankind: a monstrous weapon of mass destruction that has already killed millions of people and destroyed countless cultures and societies before ours. A system that is robbing its own followers of the most basic human rights and which is forcing them to suppress and kill their own. A system that is aiming at subjugating all human beings – Muslims and non-Muslims – under barbaric, totalitarian laws. A system that calls itself a religion but is so much more than that. A system that praises death more than life. A system that knows no mercy and no borders.

A system whose name means “submission”.

A system that bears the name Islam.

Peter Hyatt said...

I hate reading this, and her face makes me sad to think of the rage towards her, but the "no go" zones that don't exist:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/sweden-journalist-stoned-while-trying-to-film-in-no-go-zone/comment-page-1#comment-1316429

I am openly wondering from those who have been studying the criminal activity in Europe, and the European reaction:

Which country will be the first to cede over sovereign land to quiet the Supremacists demands?

Germany, with Merkel?
Sweden, Malmo?
France, with Marseille?

Or, somewhere else?

I'd say "Rotherham" but my UK friends, led by Hob Nob, would riot.

Peter

ima.grandma said...

I have goosebumps. I'm speechless.

Thank you Mr. or Ms. Anonymous. I listened, heard and now understand.

Juliet said...

I am still thinking around why the letter writer didn't state she was a doctor - I don't know if that indicates that she felt no need to persuade, or if it is because she did not want to make a lie. The rest I don't think she considers to be untrue - she believes it all, so has no difficulty in writing it. I don't think much of it is her own experience, more she is mostly relaying things she has heard from others, and then adding her own views about the greeters, and so forth. She doesn't introduce herself at all (except, in my opinion, accidentally, as the cleaner) - can it be that she avoids introducing herself because she does not want to lie, and also because she does she want to tell the truth?

I am not sure she, herself, even sets out to give the impression she is a doctor - it could be written by just anyone who worked at a hospital, in any capacity, and who held a strong opinion - I need to read it again. It could be that the person who publicised the email decided to say it had been written specifically by a doctor, to lend the account credibility - I think 'an eyewitness' (to whatever a hospital cleaner might see but not want to include, because who would care for the problems and opinion of a minimum wage cleaner, perhaps) might be how it started out, and then she was loaned doctor credentials along the email trail, to add credibility to the account, because people believe doctors. (Except the McCanns.)



Juliet said...

The Sharia family courts in the UK concern me.

Peter Hyatt said...

The author did not claim to be a doctor. This would be awkward as it was not the purpose. The author did not have need to persuade, nor did she cover her own reputation; she allowed herself to look unprofessional: she was concerned with the chaos and danger encountered.

It has no sensitivity regarding

a. the setting
b. the violence
c. the medical professionals
d. the others

she showed typical hospital knowledge, including what others make (they talk, they compare)

Her purpose was to blow off the anger of what she experienced.

Anonymous: I had read Sennels article and it is quite logical, and lower on emotion than most.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Here is a No Going Zone but it is way worse now. this is old:

The paramedics decked out in military gear, including helmets, bulletproof vests, shin protectors, and gas masks. This is for protection in Muslim areas in which residents attack not only police, but also emergency medical personnel. Writes Speisa.com (edited for style and translation integrity):

They [the paramedics] are met with everything from guns to machetes…. "We are not protected anymore as we had been," the head of Ambulansförbundet, Henrik Johansson, says to Dagens Medicin.

He explains that the Union wants the alarm center and ambulances to have access to the information police have on people who are likely to be violent or have weapons. But the union also wants to introduce what Johansson calls tactical units.

These are emergency medics who are ready to go into hot-spot areas, with riot helmets, bulletproof vests, shin guards and holster packs. They should have equipment adapted to work in such an environment. And of course also a gas mask, Johansson says.

So they will more or less look like the riot police?

“No, like the military,” said Johansson.

Anonymous said...

hese problems are particularly common in what have come to be called in Europe “no-go zones” — Muslim enclaves where authorities have lost control and violence is rampant. In fact, the Daily Caller recently reported that primarily Muslim immigrant gangs now control 55 areas in Sweden; this phenomenon is no longer just limited to big cities such as Stockholm, either, but affects 22 different municipalities.

The Daily Caller: “Thugs have slashed the tires of the ambulances, smashed their windshields and hurled large rocks from overpasses, while the paramedics themselves are subjected to both armed and unarmed physical violence on a regular basis.” This imperils patients as well, as paramedics now must often wait until the police have secured an area before answering an emergency call.

Buses, taxis, delivery companies, mailmen, and firemen are also targeted by the Muslims. Of particular note is that the criminals will purposely set fires and then attack firefighters when they arrive at the scene. This has resulted in cars being set alight almost every day in Muslim enclaves, and Sweden now, incredibly, has an average of one school fire every day — a world record. In contrast, reports the Daily Caller, Greece has only about five a year despite having virtually the same population as Sweden.

And authorities are thoroughly intimidated. The Daily Caller tells the story of two police officers in the no-go area of Landskrona who were cornered by approximately 50 Muslims. While they did draw their weapons and take a defensive posture, their superiors would not provide them backup for fear of “escalation.” The situation was only diffused because one police officer knew some locals who prevailed on the gang to “let the officers escape,” as the Daily Caller puts it. The site continues, “While such brazen aggression is rare, patrol cars are frequently pelted with rocks, and the drivers are targeted with green lasers. Blinding drivers with the powerful, hand-held lasers is a growing ‘sport,’ where the goal is to make the driver crash.”
Then there was the old man who was beaten in Tensta on October 17 because a gang thought he was with the police. Why? They mistook his hearing aid for a police earphone.

Ethnic Swedes are also being attacked. Local celebrity Linda Edenström’s 12-year old son was savagely beaten. In October, he took the subway after school to give a birthday present to a girl in his class. He was unaware she lived in a no-go zone, and when he exited the station he was promptly stopped by seven grown immigrants. They declared that no whites were allowed and proceeded to attack him while hurling anti-white slurs.
And Sweden already has achieved Third World status in one respect. It now has the highest rate of rape in Europe. Moreover, Swedish police recorded in 2010 the second-highest number of rapes in the world next to Lesotho — the small nation in southern Africa. This is mainly attributable to Muslim immigrants who target ethnic Swedes under the pretext that non-Muslims, and especially women in Western attire, are fair game.

Nonetheless, the Swedish government’s program to turn Sweden into a “multicultural” nation continues unabated. Whereas not long ago the country had 8 million people, it now has 10 million, with approximately 15 percent foreign-born. And that percentage increases every year.

Peter Hyatt said...

Imagrandma,

the journalist...this story bothered me, regardless of how small it is. As a woman, she wants to assert her right in her own country, and as a journalist, she wants to tell a story.

Both are driven down in one story.

It is very sad.

Peter

Juliet said...

Thanks, Peter - she did convey her anger well, for sure.

---

I see The Sheep is no more. :-/

Juliet said...

Ah, there you are. I was getting anxious. :)

ima.grandma said...

Awareness is essential.

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/oklahoma/

See what is happening in your own state. It's easy navigation.

Peter Hyatt said...

Vita is up on updates with Islamic supremacists being sent to the US. I struggle to read this.

Knowing what happened to one small city in Maine is upsetting. Interviewing those raised in this ideology is like hitting a wall with your head; eventually you may want to spare yourself: it is who they are, from deep within, with lessons from early childhood enforced with violence.

It is as natural to them as it is unnatural to us. The lack of human empathy is shocking.

Even a totally 'non religious' person who lives with neighbors who do not kill them need to study history and thank Judeo-Christian thinking which saturated their land with "do unto others" and "thou shalt not..."

Lands where this was not inherited are quite different.

Check American Thinker every morning for sense. Democrat or Republican.

Peter

Anonymous said...

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/park-view-banned-girls-mixed-10334889

Anonymous said...

Sweden rape epidemic and the crime against free speech


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202493#.VjI_X7Rm5PF

Anonymous said...

this is the last one for now and if you were depressed before take a look at today's article and the article on dogs. I know you've posted pictures of your dogs on this blog. Do you know what Mohammad taught about dogs? Do you even know why Muslims poison dogs in the UK, or do not allow service dogs to enter their cabs? Look at the list and today and the dog one especially. Those others of you that are just awakening to this probably don't know this anymore than you do. It is so outrageous that people have to say it is real and it is so outrageous that it makes you people doubt it

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/carol_brown/

Juliet said...

On a more positive note there is a Facebook page called 'Good Muslims love dogs!' - upon which Muslim dog lovers and Muslim dog haters battle it out, and post photos of Muslims Loving Dogs. Dogs and shoes alike - some people would not dream of allowing them indoors - to have a dog indoors is like keeping a farm animal in your house. My grandmother used to say that, too, and she wasn't a Muslim. Looking at my dogs, stinky little wreckers that they are, I can quite see the argument, Some of these things are cultural, rather than specifically religious - there are plenty of dog haters amongst any population, as animal welfare organisations bear out.

ima.grandma said...

This must be a sign. This article came up in a google search for something else. Note the date.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/28/us-oklahoma-beheading-idUSKCN0SM2I320151028

ima.grandma said...

Peter, you might find this interesting. There are references to the "power of words"
I now understand why the analogy of racism doesn't apply.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-inner-workings-of-the-apologist-mindset/

My mind is experiencing overload. I need a vacation. Personal growth is painful.

Juliet said...

Female circumcision or FGM, is widely believed to be an exclusively Muslim evil justified on grounds of religion - yet there are those who argue that it is not a part of the religion, rather it is widely inflicted by people who are Muslims. Christians also do this to their daughters, along with people of other religions. It is a cultural ritual which is conflated with religion, often by those who practise it.

http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/background/islam-or-culture/

That's not to be an apologist, just to say things aren't always quite as presented. There is some success, in some areas, in reducing the incidence of FGM, but people need convincing it doesn't need to be part of their religious and cultural lives.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Something else has always puzzled me:
Those who have 100 percent faith in an after life and heaven (I envy you) seem to be in two schools of thought --

Some believe one has to knowingly and formally acknowledge Jesus, even those who live in remote jungles and never hear of him or Christianity.

Others feel that a person can't be faulted for where on the planet they were born and are OK as long as they lived his basic teachings regardless, and had a good heart.

Muslims are taught from birth that we are the evil, murdering heathens out to destroy all that is good and pure, and that we are teaching generations to go against the word of Allah.

Those who believe it is one's heart that qualifies them: An Islamic jihadist, a suicide bomber, is raised literally from birth to believe in his heart we are evil, and that Allah, or God, has ordered our violent death.

Giving up the ultimate sacrifice, one's life, especially at just 14-16 years old, to eradicate the "evil" that is so hurting and angering God: what happens to that person, particularly if it's a young kid?

Does the same answer apply to us if we kill evil in the name of God, but get it wrong?
"Whoops, that was Adelph Hatler, the poet and greeting card writer! Well, damn if he isn't a dead ringer (so to speak...); he even had the same crooked tooth and little scar on his nose!"

They feel they have to eradicate Christianity to save the planet; now we're building momentum that Islam must be wiped out to save the planet.
Both are now justifying genocide (multi, if that's not redundant) in the name of God and and good.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Juliet, the first I ever learned of FGM was back in tenth grade (early 1980s, yup I'm OLD!), from our biology teacher. It absolutely horrified us, even the boys.

That's the only time I remember in my life a roomful of 15- and 16-year-olds were stunned into silence, not a single smart remark or even nervous giggle while a teacher talked about genitalia and sexual pleasure.

Her hope, way back then, was that education was the key; the more people knowing what's happening, we could ban it for good.
From what you post here it's even more widespread geographically and philosophically (more reasons being given, even beyond religion).

One step that might help if education is the key, is to call it what it is -- genital mutilation. Female "circumcision" sounds so innocuous and misleading it's ludicrous, most likely coined by those wishing to minimize and excuse it.

Juliet said...

Foodie, I think traditionally, it was just likened to circumcision by those medics, missionaries, whoever who encountered it rather than that it was called that by those who did it - not sure, only it seems the people who do it talk in terms of cutting, of whether a girl has been cut, or not, and the women who do it are called cutters. Those who want it banned introduced the FGM term, calling a spade a spade, I suppose - or just being insulting and inflammatory to those who like to think they're just tidying up God's work, depending on how anyone wants to look at it. It's the women who do it, and who force it upon their children, but the men believe it is necessary, too. Yes, education is the key - but it takes a long time to disabuse people without it all becoming counterproductive and further alienating them instead. The thing is - there's the problem 'we could ban it for good' - imposition alienates - they need to reach a point, where they want to abandon it themselves. In some places that is working, through education - and in countries where it is banned, as in UK, it is now recognised as illegal and taboo - some people will still take their kids abroad to get it done, but others will give it a lot a more consideration due to the ongoing public conversation and information, and decide no, they are not going to have that inflicted on their daughters.

Your other post - Christianity is a pretty exclusive religion, too, and in some of its forms it's just as supremacist as Islam - anyone would be forgiven for thinking that God was somehow under ownership, rather than that it is people who belong to God - we who are formed in God's image, not God who is formed in and by ours; sadly, man does make God in his own image, so there will always be problems on account of religion.

Juliet said...

Foodie - I think everyone and everything exists only within God, there is nothing apart from God - so the sooner we all learn to get along, the better - cause it's a long time dead, especially with all those Muslims. :)

Anonymous said...

Juliet,

Scenario: The UK is a multicultural democracy. Suppose that as demographics change, in the not so distant future, Islam became the majority religion and culture in Blighty. How (for better and/or for worse) do you expect this would affect any non-Muslims you care about? What are your thoughts?

Juliet said...

Anon - It's not going to happen, we're British.

Also, I think without a constructive response to the situations various, what's it all for? How does it help, and who does it help? What is the motive - what is it for?



Anonymous said...

I asked because I wanted to understand your thinking better.

I was a bit surprised by your answer, so I think I understand a bit better now.

Anonymous said...

Women and Children fleeing war?

MSM says yes.

UN now admits 70% or more young men, but even this is a lie.

THE SAME video which MSM cut down to make police look bad, in total is VERY DIFFERENT


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0CF9c8B_3M

Anonymous said...

The children are raised in violence and become violent parents. it is not like you and me. it is not a religion it is an entire political social ideology that deprives everyone else of freedom.




Bat Ye'or

She predicted this decades ago, spoke in the US but muslims invaded churches and schools and threatened riots and forced canceled speeches or actually just screamed and yelled until the speech could not longer go on. sorry.

Anonymous said...

This is the worst. See how they use our Western beliefs against us? Denmark thinks they can stop the rapes by "sex education" before welfare check.

Food not good enough for dogs. Give us our money. Food ok for women, not us, not dogs. Give us our money.


THIS VIDEO CANNOT BE REAL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0CF9c8B_3M

Juliet said...

I find there's a lot of scaremongering going on here, the side effect of which is likely to be detrimental to everyone who is exposed to it; generating fear forces everyone who allows themselves to be governed by it to adopt a victim mentality, because fear breeds fear. Is that what some people want? How does it help? Suddenly every Muslim is viewed as a potential extremist, and by consequence every respectable Muslim finds his or her self-respect and dignity snatched away - psychologically, that is seriously bad for anyone. If you want to mess with somebody's mind, just tell them they are someone they are not, but don't act all surprised if it makes them angry, and somehow does not help.

Here we have the marvellous Baroness Cox, battling the kind but blind. The trouble with the U.K. Is that a bunch of nice polite guys go off and have an expensive fancy lunch/day at the races/etc together, during which they all amicably agree it would be a great, marvellous, fabulous, fantastic idea to make this 'accommodation' or that, and great for integration (but most of us don't want the integration of sharia law into British law, thanks - that's not what reasonable 'normal' people mean by 'integration') despite it will be only detrimental to Muslim women's rights; it's a guy thing, see how well they all get along together, hoorah - but all the while some of them are thinking, 'Ah, never mind, old chap - Cox or some old girl will sort that mess out later..' That's how it goes - incompetent suck-ups, some might call them - but there, everyone likes the shiny things. It is still a sexist society, sad to say - that's because all the feminists got hypnotised into cis talk and hating on transgender women. Waste of brain cells, while the men carry on like prats while they're not looking. (Apologies to all the good men and true who are not sexist prats - generalisations are always wrong).

I think if people live in Britain they should agree to be bound by British law - likewise, for any country. Sharia courts or councils have been around in the UK in excess of thirty years, for the settling of family and civil disputes. I don't agree that it's acceptable, as women feel bound to the decision of the sharia court, and so are less likely to take up their right to also use the British legal system. If there were no sharia option, there would be less community imposed abrogation of their real rights, as British citizens, or whatever their status. To me, that seems obvious and simple - no sharia courts, councils or rulings, but it's not in the least bit simple, and Muslim women themselves defend the existence of the sharia courts; they are not victims, parroting their men folk, they are intelligent articulate women, so it would be more than a bit patronising to suggest that, really, they don't know what they are talking about, and we know better. It would not be easy to just ban some things - but it might not be terribly difficult either... Besides the sharia courts, there are the Jewish Beth Din, and Somali courts - there are parallel legal systems all over the place. I'm with those who want one law for all, the end of all and any type of religious or 'cultural' courts in Britain, and the restoration of legal aid to enable poor people, any - British and ethnic minority, to once again have access to British justice. It's sad that poor Muslims have to use the sharia courts if they can't afford to pay for justice - it's not always a choice. And sometimes yes, people don't know what, really is best for them. To me, it's not about Islam, it's about equal citizenship and women's rights. If there are no sharia courts, no woman can be compelled or choose to attend one, and no child custody issues can be resolved outside of a proper court. There would no doubt be gratitude from Muslim women, as there was in France with the face covering legislation, though some find it an outrage.

Juliet said...

The will legislation needs scrapping, too - what were they thinking? If people want to abide by the Sharia they should live in a Muslim country. We are very accommodating, but also we are British, and not happy with sharia law, not even the civil,soft variety - it sells women short, deprives them of their children, and of their inheritance. When in Rome...or at least abide by the law of the land.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10778554/The-feisty-baroness-defending-voiceless-Muslim-women.html

Juliet said...

Also, though, - in case it helps anyone who is getting overwrought by the youtubes, there have been sharia courts in operation for probably thirty five years, maybe longer, on British soil; did anyone ever notice that British Mulims, of whom there are a fair few, don't go in for public amputations or beheadings on the village green? Thirty five years. That's Sharia civil courts, for settling family disputes - British Muslims are just not into Sharia criminal courts. That's why a lot of them came here, to get away from that type of insanity. We have rubbish overcrowded prisons, but British Muslims don't seems interested in setting up Sharia criminal courts or chopping off one another's hands or heads - they'd much rather go to prison. . So, that's good news.

I think...

Peter Hyatt said...

Islamic Law versus the country's law:

When one is opposed to the other, which will prevail?

http://pjmedia.com/blog/multicultural-windfall-judge-awards-240000-to-muslim-truckers-who-refused-to-deliver-beer/


This is particularly important with precedent. See Disney case, too.

Peter

Sus said...

Peter,
That article is an example of how US law prevailed, specifically the Civil Rights Act.

Star Transport admitted in court they could have easily swapped loads. Star Transport admitted they often swapped loads between drivers.

The Civil Rights Act requires an employer to accommodate religious beliefs if it puts no undue pressure on the employer. (See admission above.) Star Transport instead, fired the two employees asking to swap loads.

Star Transport was found in violation of the Civil Rights Act which states no one may be let go from employment because of race, color, RELIGION, sex, or National origin.

US law prevails.

Anonymous said...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=829_1446036247

Peter Hyatt said...

Here's the article. The material consideration of the company is now to pay them $240,000. I must have missed something.

Multicultural Windfall: Judge Awards $240,000 to Muslim Truckers Who Refused to Deliver Beer

In a tight spot and need some cash? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is here to help. All you need to do is convert to Islam then refuse to do your job on religious grounds, and significant financial rewards await you.

Last Thursday, the EEOC won $240,000 for two Muslim truck drivers who had been fired for refusing to transport beer. The lucky winners, Somali Muslims Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale, had been fired by trucking company Star Transport. Their refusal was based on Islamic law.

One hadith describes Aisha, Muhammad’s beloved child bride, recounting:

When the last verses of Surat-al-Baqara [chapter two of the Qur’an] were revealed, the Prophet went out (of his house to the Mosque) and said, “The trade of alcohol has become illegal.” (Bukhari 3.34.429)

Due to this passage, Muslims not only cannot drink alcohol, but they cannot traffic in it, including driving it from one place to another. However, this rule is not hard and fast: Muslims who sell alcohol in convenience stores or do the job Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale were told to do can justify it by pointing to the Islamic principles of taysir, meaning “facilitation” or making things easier, and darura, the permission to do something that is normally illegal out of some necessity.

Not all Islamic scholars accept the idea that those principles allow Muslims to contravene Islamic law. They point to a hadith that depicts Muhammad saying the following:

It is obligatory upon a Muslim that he should listen (to the ruler appointed over him) and obey him whether he likes it or not, except that he is ordered to do a sinful thing. If he is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither listen to him nor should he obey his orders. (Muslim 4553)

That’s what leads to lawsuits such as this one. Said the EEOC’s General Counsel David Lopez:

EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices. This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.

That sounds lofty, American. But before you break out the fife and drum, consider that this case enforces the opposite of “equal treatment in the workplace.” It establishes Muslim truckers as having a special right to choose what they transport and what they do not, a privilege that other truckers do not have.

Peter Hyatt said...

The Obama administration helped two Muslim truck drivers working for an American company in the U.S. get a nice settlement after being fired for refusing to transport alcohol because it violates their religious beliefs.

It’s another one of those shameful only-in-America stories. It also marks the second time in two years that an Obama-appointed federal judge rules in favor of Muslims crying discrimination in the American workplace. In 2013 a freshly appointed federal judge in Northern California handed the administration a major victory, ruling that a Muslim woman’s civil rights were violated by an American clothing retailer that didn’t allow her to wear a head scarf as required by her religion. The lawsuit was filed on the woman’s behalf by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws.

The EEOC, which has made it a mission to go after businesses that don’t accommodate Muslims in the workplace, also sued on behalf of the two truck drivers. The unbelievable case comes out of Peoria, Illinois, a community of around 113,000 located 166 miles from Chicago. The Somalian Muslims, Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulsha, worked for a trucking company called Star Transport based in Morton, Illinois. In its lawsuit the EEOC accused Star Transport of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the bases of religion. The EEOC’s district director said that the agency took legal action after an investigation revealed that the trucking company “could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees’ Islamic religion.”

The chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Obama appointee James E. Shadid, agreed and ruled in favor of the Muslim men. Based on that ruling, a jury subsequently awarded the derelict Muslim truckers $240,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. This month the EEOC is celebrating yet another victory in a “religious discrimination suit” on behalf of Muslims. “EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”

One of the EEOC attorneys that litigated the case went overboard, actually saying that Star Transport’s failure to provide human resources personnel with discrimination training led to “catastrophic results” for the Muslim truck drivers. “They suffered real injustice that needed to be addressed,” said the EEOC lawyer, June Calhoun, who added that the jury sent a clear message that employers will be held accountable for their unlawful employment practices. “Moreover, they signaled to Mr. Mohamed and Mr. Bulshale that religious freedom is a right for all Americans,” Calhoun said.

The EEOC’s efforts are part of a broader Obama administration plan to protect and advance Muslim rights in the U.S. This includes dispatching the nation’s Attorney General (at the time Eric Holder) to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them and allowing a terrorist organization to dictate how law enforcement officers are trained. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), actually got the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to purge anti-terrorism training material considered offensive to Muslims. Judicial Watch obtained hundreds of pages of FBI documents with details of the outrageous arrangement and published a special report.

Peter

Sus said...

"a privilege that the other truckers did not have."

"Star Transport admitted they often swapped loads between drivers."

The second sentence says differently. The company admitted they discriminated based upon religion. They do swap loads for other truckers. They fired the Muslims. If they made it a policy not to switch loads it would have been different. The Muslim men would not have received an award, and the Court stated as such.

Peter Hyatt said...

To stretch a law to fit anything deemed religious, is to allow the company to be dictated by workers, who do not need to show an established religious practice or custom.

So, for example, you have 20 Muslim drivers who do their job and two who suddenly say they will not, the company, not wishing to be under control of workers, so they can exist to make money, do not make allowances. This could open a door for anyone and everyone claiming anything as religious belief.


This is because Muslims regularly sell and transport alcohol including at convenience centers and small stores and that not all Islam bans the transportation.

The company yields to something this minor, they lose control and now have to be controlled by anything.

Interesting who the judge was that awarded them the money.

I failed to gain safety for adults with mental retardation and adult autism from Islamic care takers who regularly slapped their faces and used physical abuse to coerce patients; and claimed religious persecution when told they were not allowed to use physical force.

The powers that be were so afraid of being called racist or Islamophobe that no prosecution went forward even with admissions that they were slapping hitting pinching and overall physically busing patients. It emboldened the supremacists abusers.

Somehow, I fail to see this as a victory for US law.

If every time a judge makes an order makes it a victory for US law, there is probably a very different discussion needed.

The ambulance company was successfully sued in Maine when it stopped picking up Somalis because the Somalis knew that they could call 911 and use the ambulance ride for a free taxi downtown and no one would dare press charges.

Losing too much money, endangering real emergency sufferers lives, the ambulance company stopped going to Somalis because even after community intervention, they said, "F*** you**" and continued to regularly call for an ambulance.

I guess using your logic, the successful suit meant US law prevailed here too. The "bad" is business, and the "good" is Islamic supremacist who use their ideology to destroy and when they are successful, they are applauded for it.

I keep thinking of the Germans who applauded the "refugee" singing....

as they sang about death to the Germans to satisfy their ideology.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Yet, courts forced a bakery out of business, Sus, for following their religious conscience.

Sus said...

Peter,
I am stating I am no Holder fan. I think he did irrevocable harm as the head of the DOJ. But our law stands. It stands for all, regardless of whether we like who received its benefit. In this case it seems to me, the company admitted they fired two Muslim men who they easily could have accommodated for. The company proved they had made those very accommodations often. That's my take. Thank you for letting me share them on your blog when I know you don't agree.

Peter Hyatt said...

Here's another victory for American courts protecting religious freedom for you.


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/gay_whale_swallows_jonah.html

The arrogance of the judge almost equaled his ignorance.

Note to judge: People did not think the world was flat in 1492. It was humor and fiction. The ancient Greeks came very close to measuring the circumference. Yet, US courts prevailed! US law trumped PC madness!

When a 15 year old girl stops eating because she sees herself as "fat" in the mirror when she is actually starving, the mental health professionals must turn her away, hail her as a hero and say,

"She identifies as one who is overweight. We will not judge her, lest we be intolerant of her identity. If fact, "overweight" is a subjective and hateful judgment. Gravitationally challenged, perhaps. "

Truth be damned.

As feminists protest 65 year old Grandfather named "Woman of the Year", they remain strangely silent in Sweden, the rape capital of the West.

When the judge refused to deport the rapist to Africa, he said that their women are just as valuable as ours, so the rapist stays.

When people stop thinking, this is the result.



Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous Sus said...
Peter,
I am stating I am no Holder fan. I think he did irrevocable harm as the head of the DOJ. But our law stands. It stands for all, regardless of whether we like who received its benefit. In this case it seems to me, the company admitted they fired two Muslim men who they easily could have accommodated for. The company proved they had made those very accommodations often. That's my take. Thank you for letting me share them on your blog when I know you don't agree.


The law did not stand; it did not prevail. It's intent was twisted to supplant Islam above the law. They had other Muslim drivers and would not be bullied by these two and had plenty of Islamic arguments and precedent. They had to admit not giving their HR special Muslim sensitivity training.

A bakery does not make a cake because of a religious principle dating back thousands of years and before the DSM was protested into change, and is fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for a $20 cake.

Does this mean "the law prevailed"?

The law's intent for workplace has precedent where major religious issues from established religious tradition exists, so that if someone says, before being hired, "I cannot work on Saturday", and it still hired, they are protected.

But when 2 muslims claim they cannot deliver alcohol while all others do, with no clear cut Islamic teaching nor precedent (the judge might go back a 7-11 for 6 pack from Mohammad and know the truth) and a company cannot allow themselves to be bullied otherwise they will be overrun, especially with the supremacy of Islam, we not only have capricious application, but an exploitation of the spirit of the law.

Just because a court makes a ruling, does not mean it kept the law. Our supreme court did exactly what Nuremberg did:

It trumped a citizen's rights, and created an entirely new entity: the Identity.

This is what Nuremberg did: it created the "Nazi" which was a new entity, which trumped German citizenship of Jews.

Folly upon folly.

Peter Hyatt said...

You'll have to excuse my frustration.

Since I posted this, more than 400 people have died due to the supremacist ideology as its direct cause.

It demands and receives special treatment as it takes over. the last 6 years have been the worst for freedom sine the birth of our nation.

PH

Peter Hyatt said...

Judaism's prohibition against homosexuality is based on Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination."

Lets say the Jew asked the company to switch partners to a non homosexual due to religious conscience.

Would you support this? Would EEOC?

You may not have to guess at this one soon enough

Muslim pharmacist refused to dispense rx to Jews but no one dared to report him.

Peter

foodiefoodnerd said...

Sus, I didn't read the lawsuit or verdict, and if it's as clear-cut discrimination and applying company policy unfairly as shown here I agree they're entitled to REASONABLE relief.

However, this is presented as if it were as simple as two equally qualified drivers and two trucks with loads that have identical mileage and time requirements, standing side by side, ready to roll.

Before cutting that fat check and setting off a chain reaction of ugly precedence:
Were the loads equal in both time and mileage requirements?

Would a switch put either driver into excess road miles? (federal safety laws)

Would a switch put any driver into costly overtime?

Did all drivers know their proposed switched routes, and could they start when their trucks were scheduled to leave?

Were both drivers and trucks at the same location?

Again, I'm asking sincerely; I haven't yet read the details with my own eyes. But some of the most infamous verdicts have more to them than the feces-stirring soundbites give us.

Add to that some PC fever and you have a disaster in the making.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Sus, I didn't read the lawsuit or verdict, and IF it's as clear-cut discrimination and applying company policy unfairly as implied here I agree they're entitled to REASONABLE relief.
(hint: not even close to six figures!!)

However, this is presented as if it were as simple as two equally qualified drivers and two trucks with loads that have identical mileage and time requirements, standing side by side, ready to roll.

Before cutting that fat check and setting off a chain reaction of ugly precedence:
Were the loads equal in both time and mileage requirements?

Would a switch put either driver into excess road miles? (federal safety laws)

Would a switch put any driver into costly overtime?

Did all drivers know their proposed switched routes, and could they start when their trucks were scheduled to leave?

Were both drivers and trucks at the same location?

Again, I'm asking sincerely; I haven't yet read the details with my own eyes. But some of the most infamous verdicts have more to them than the feces-stirring soundbites give us.

Add to that some PC fever and you have a disaster in the making.

Peter Hyatt said...

Courts use precedent to interpret laws.

The religious freedom civil right has been used, in precedent, over major issues, such as Sabbath worship.

Since Islam is torn on this, and no clear religious teaching is from Islam on it, and Muslim drivers deliver alcohol and Muslim own businesses sell it, the company refused.

The Obama judge did as expected.

Take a look at the New Jersey Jonah decision. Please.

I have to believe that thinking people can think not only critically, but objectively.

Anonymous said...

Germans are not getting news

-year-old boy has been hospitalised after having a stone thrown at him by a resident of a troubled German migrant centre which has seen riots and Islamist violence.

The young boy, who has not bee identified, suffered “massive bruising” after he inadvertently interrupted a football game taking place at the state of Thuringa migrant centre in Suhl, Germany. The child entered a gymnasium looking for his brothers when he kicked a football, enraging another migrant.

The child was then beaten around the head “several times” with the ball until a supervisor stepped in to end the violence.

Unluckily for the small boy, his assailant then caught up with him again after the game, and threw a rock at his head. Admitted to hospital for serious injuries, police said the boy had “massive bruising”, reports Focus.de.

Police have failed to identify the migrant who caused the injuries to the child.

This is not the first time the Suhl migrant receiving centre has made headlines recently. Breitbart London reported in August after residents staged a major riot at and around the buildings. The disturbance started as sectarian violence, as an Afghani migrant tore out pages of a Koran and stuffed them down a toilet, and was instantly set upon by fellow Muslims.

Beth said...

Although the rape took place in June, police kept silent about it for nearly three months, until local media published a story about the crime. According to an editorial comment in the newspaper Westfalen-Blatt, police are refusing to go public about crimes involving refugees and migrants because they do not want to give legitimacy to critics of mass migration.

A 13-year-old Muslim girl was raped by another asylum seeker at a refugee facility in Detmold, a city in west-central Germany. The girl and her mother reportedly fled their homeland to escape a culture of sexual violence.

Approximately 80% of the refugees/migrants at the shelter in Munich are male... the price for sex with female asylum seekers is ten euros. — Bavarian Broadcasting (Bayerischer Rundfunk).

Police in the Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old-girl was raped on September 11, have issued a warning to parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. In the Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators of the Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium have warned parents not to let their daughter's wear revealing clothing in order to avoid "misunderstandings."

"When Muslim teenage boys go to open air swimming pools, they are overwhelmed when they see girls in bikinis. These boys, who come from a culture where for women it is frowned upon to show naked skin, will follow girls and bother them without their realizing it. Naturally, this generates fear." — Bavarian politician, quoted in Die Welt.

A police raid on the Munich refugee facility found that guards hired to provide security at the site were trafficking drugs and weapons and were turning a blind eye to the prostitution.

Meanwhile, the raping of German women by asylum seekers is becoming commonplace.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't gonna get into this stupid contrarian stuff by here goes.

Muslims demand separate prayer rooms in hospitals or they will riot. Sweden gave in.
Germany. They demand separate nursing homes for their elderly paid for by the west. They say it is offense to be housed with "infidels." The demands grow with each victory. Give the truck company now bankrupt credit for taking a stand. You shouldn't waste your breathe. You get baited by these stupid arguments. They're here just to oppose you and take any opportunity to do so even this.
http://www.europeanguardian.com/80-uncategorised/politics/521-muslims-in-german-federal-state-north-rhine-westfalia-demand-separate-nursing-home-for-muslim-elderly-people

This is discrimination. Apartheid. Islam superiority.

Sus said...

Food,
Actually, the EEOC worked with the company for a year on anti-discrimination practices. That's where the out-of-context quote from the EEOC attorney comes from. The EEOC then tried out of court arbitration. (The firings happened in 2009.) The trucking company admitted they swap loads regularly. They admitted they fired the two Muslim men when they asked, instead. The company was only fighting the punitive damages in court. It was decided by a jury within 45 minutes. It's clearly a case of discrimination by an employer.

Peter Hyatt said...

We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law."

From secret German government document.