What’s worse than beheading people?
Quite a lot, actually. Vlad Tepes asks us to think about what has already gone wrong with the culture before public beheadings can become a common form of social interaction:
Trying to spot the important atrocities in a sea of horror
Of course the regular media is all over public beheadings. I can’t blame them for that. In fact, I’m even grateful that at least they don’t ignore them despite getting important aspects wrong, like the ‘lone wolf’ nonsense used by the Obama administration to deflect from the obvious islamic motivations and scriptural support, and the general calls by high-ranking islamic organizations to commit these attacks.
But there are the little things that stick in my craw as being of significantly more importance than they are given, especially when they happen immediately before, or in the wake of an attack like we saw in Oklahoma.
Two such events took place within 24 hours of the Oklahoma attack.
The one I’d like to address first is the family that was thrown off of a British municipal bus because they were singing a song from a popular child’s TV show to their autistic daughter. They were also “branded racists”, the scarlet letter of today’s social crimes.
The couple, who live in Rotherham, started singing the song in an effort to cheer their daughter up, but say they were branded racists by another passenger and told to get off the bus by its driver.
The couple claimed the woman, who they say was wearing a hijab, took offence to the snorting sounds in the song and believed they were a reference to how pork is forbidden in Islam though this has not been confirmed.
She complained to the bus’s driver, who, it is claimed, then told the couple it would be ‘easier’ for them to get off two miles from their home.
We need to take a journey through the levels of abstraction before an event like this happens again, in order to ascertain and expose its meaning. Because the true meaning of this event is orders of magnitude larger than merely a couple and a disabled daughter being inconvenienced. This may be the best example yet of how sharia law results in islamic supremacy and the subjugation of the indigenous population of Europe that I have seen in the papers for some days, sad as that is to say.
First, the idea that you can’t eat pork or alcohol near people who have chosen, entirely arbitrarily, not to eat it themselves is a travesty of justice. Yes, people should be allowed to not eat whatever they choose not to. Doing so is central to freedom. But how we made the leap of expecting other people not to eat or drink those things because it offends others, needs to be studied. It’s as if heterosexuals are compelled to hide their own heterosexuality in public places to avoid offending homosexuals. This is all about exerting control and supremacy over others, and should not be allowed to happen. It has no place in a tolerant or liberal society.
An important distinction here is that homosexuals do not choose their sexual preference. It is a condition of their existence, whereas eating halal is entirely a choice. This again shows how the islamic example is a show of control and supremacy even if it uses the totem of political correctness and religious tolerance.
Within the last decade, we have also seen muslim groups successfully force various “offensive” symbols to be removed from public service adds. The Scottish police ads which showed a black puppy was removed because muslims find dogs objectionable, especially black ones. But like the pork and alcohol issue, it was simply not enough for muslims to have the freedom not to own a dog if they don’t want to. They go so far as to ensure that public institutions not have dogs, both in theory and practice. Special rules are in place so that muslim suspects won’t be searched by police dogs, but even ink spilled on paper in the shape of a dog cannot be allowed to exist in the public sphere.
In free societies, people who don’t want to eat pork, don’t have to; and people who don’t want a dog, don’t have to buy one. But thanks to some brutal mugging of the basic rules of logic, it has become necessary to roll back the rational rights of others to accommodate the arbitrary choices of muslims.
These food choices don’t involve allergies or legal requirements. Not that it matters, and not that it should bear mentioning, but an argument can be made that the koran actually says that any food fit for Christians and Jews is A-OK for muslims. Once again, this shows how it’s all about exerting control, and not about any kind of requirement, no matter how trivial or voluntary it may be. (Qur’an 5:5 Surah Al-Ma’idah (The Table Spread) We are not muslims. We have no obligation to observe the dietary requirements or other requirements of those who believe. Freedom specifically means that those want to, do; and those who do not want to, are not obliged to. Forgetting this basic fact is collective suicide.
So now we move into the realm of the final symbol of Islamic domination…
Read the rest at Vlad’s place.