Who Let All These Aussie-Born Jihadists Into The Country?

In the current round of Neocon American and Zionist  Imperialist (NAZI) war-mongering  and “terror hysteria”,  Greens MP Adam Bandt, Independents Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan, and Labor member Melissa Parke  were the only four (4) House of Reps MPs to oppose the present  draconian extensions of anti-terror laws that push Australia further towards a Nazi-style police state. Some science-informed key points below that are steadfastly ignored by the Yellow Press of White Australia (see Gideon Polya, “Australian State Terrorism -  Zero Australian Terrorism Deaths, 1 Million Preventable Australian Deaths & 10 Million Muslims Killed By US Alliance Since 9-11”,  Countercurrents, 23 September, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230914.htm ) :

1. Zero (0) Australians have been killed by Muslim terrorists in Australia since 1788.

2. The “empirical annual probability  of an Australian being killed by a terrorist in Australia” is about 1 in 109 million, about 5 times lower than the “empirical annual probability  of an Australian being killed by a shark in Australia” .

3. Of the 6 Australians who were killed by terrorists in Australia in the last 36 years, none were killed by Muslims and it has been expertly speculated that  3 were killed by an Australian Intelligence operation gone wrong. However the new laws mean that an Australia journalist who reports hard evidence for this faces 10 years in prison.

4. Rational risk  management that is crucial  for societal  safety successively involves (a) accurate information, (b) scientific analysis and (c) informed systemic  change to minimize risk. The new terror laws criminalize reportage and hence seriously endanger Australians.

5. 80,000 Australians  die preventably each year  but to minimize this carnage takes money for education and health that will now be shifted to war and spying (the long-term accrual cost of the War on Terror to Australia is , so far, $125 billion). .  

6. The “terror hysteria” Lib-Labs have not put any quantitative estimate of the annual  terror threat to Australia (my estimate 1 in 109 million) i.e. they are deliberately lying by omission.

7.We are told daily that 50% of Australians will suffer a mental illness in their lifetime but this imbalance has not translated into any deaths from Muslim terrorism in Australia whereas the traitorous, US lackey,  pro-Zionist, neoliberal Lib-Labs are inescapably linked to 80,000 preventable Australian  deaths each year and 1 million preventable deaths sunce the US Govenrment's false-flag 9-11 atrocity in 2001 (see “Experts: US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/  ) .

.Decent, informed   Australians who want rational risk management  for a safe, free and prosperous Australia will utterly reject Lib-Lab war and “terror hysteria’, vote 1 Green and put the Coalition last. 

Excuse numerous typos... My keyboard is as worn as I.

Dr Tad

The danger now is that the Left falls into a mindless defence of multiculturalism as guaranteeing “social cohesion” in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. In fact it has been a policy dividing Australian society into identity groups, each with “leaders” who superintend “community members” they often have little in common with, in exchange for a privileged relationship to government and politics.

Source

This is not a danger that may happen so much as precisely what the left do, frankly much of it is down to the underlying assumption that all cultures are equal in their virtue and that none may be critiqued because to do so would be evidence of that ultimate evil (in leftist terms ) of "racism". 

Of course blind Freddy can see that not all cultures and religions are equal in their virtues. A culture that practices something utterly beyond the pale like human sacrifice will be quickly dismissed and condemned or in the very least prohibited from continuing the unacceptable cultural practice (we after all don't permit murder of any kind) but it becomes harder to confront or critique any other social practices that are more benign. A good example of this is the the current Hoo har about Muslim women wearing face coverings or the Hijab. As Tony Abbott so succinctly puts it to meet a person with their face covered is confronting and our natural reaction is to treat that person with suspicion and Like our PM I'm happy to acknowledge that individuals do have the right to dress as they please in this country but those who dress in a Burqa et al  have to realize that there is no right to wear such a garment and to be accepted and affirmed for doing so. If you want to wear such covering s then you have to likewise wear the social consequences of doing so. To some extent the same applies to the women who wear a Hijab their right to dress as they please (or how their families insist they dress) is not in question but they too have to wear the consequences in terms of social distrust and the distance it creates between them and other Australians. Essentially you can't say that you want to be included in the greater society while wearing what amounts to a signpost of otherness. That only works in lefty La La Land 

That said I am horrified that anyone should be assaulted over their mode of dress and I really hope that the police treat the criminals who commit such crimes with the full weight of the law there is no place for that sort of thuggery, just is there is no sort of place for the thuggery of people like this chap threatening violence to anyone who critiques his Prophet. 

So only 6 people have died as a result of terrorism in Australia in the last 36 years. So the atrocities at Port Arthur and Hoddle street were not acts of terrorism? Is it because they were men brought up in the Judeo-Christian tradition? Is it because they had no clear and articulated ideology? Or is it because only non Christians carry out terror attacks? Should not the entire Judeo-Christian community be responsible for the mentioned atrocities, this would seem only logical as the Muslim community is apparently responsible for the actions of disaffected youth of the Muslim faith.

As to the arguments about the inability of the left to articulate a reasoned response to terror atrocities, that comes as no surprise. The mainstream left in Australia are simply the other side of the same coin the right occupies. Only a movement which puts Justice front and centre can confront the threat of terror attacks and articulate a dialogue with those who feel alienated from society. A salient fact is that it is not just Muslim youth who feels this alienation, but also the unemployed, the very poor, those with physical or mental disabilities and many many more.

With attacks on Muslims by non-Muslims, should we not ask non-Muslim community leaders what they are doing to stop this?

The problem with the left is that there is something in the leftist psychology, carefully nurtured I suggest, that blocks it from seeing the fifteen foot gorilla with the giant sword standing over there in the corner of the shop. The one that just beheaded the elephant. 

The current, often hysterical, public debate over the terrorist threat in Australia is one in which all sides have danced around the most important empirical fact of all — that the Jihadists are a product of modern Australian society after more than a decade of the so-called War on Terror.

Of course security agencies, the media and politicos have not denied this fact. It’s just that even when it is mentioned, its implications not only go unstated, but Jihadists as automatically painted as an “other” of some kind.

Completely wrong. Not just wrong. Profoundly wrong. It should come as no surprise therefore that every inference drawn from this pinhole facing south view of the world is also wrong.

Far from skirting around the important empirical fact that this vile ideology reaches into the second and three generations, often with increasing intensity, this known global phenomenon is getting unprecedented attention in Australia, and not before time.  

You can thank the images of that young Sydney boy struggling under the weight of a human head for that. And it must be said the quiet dignity of an Australian grandfather, and a brave Muslim community leader.

The most important empirical fact of all is that Jihadists are a product of a world wide ideology spread by the global communication revolution and that like all Nazi style ideologies, its infection rate is independent of local social disadvantage or legitimate social grievance.  

The most important empirical fact of all is that the world is full of shit. 

What is with the left that allows it to shrink and expand its world view according to convenience and even at the same time? How do you do that? One instant we are being told to stop the hysteria because this thing is foreign, not Muslim, and our fault anyway, or the Americans, or the Jews as they keep on saying, but not here. Next the country is excoriated for not living up to its global obligations on global issues -- combating climate change, rescuing refugees, boycotting Jews  

The rate of Nazi infection is a function of how effective and active are the Nazi recruiters. If you want to know what is the appeal of Jihadism  it is impossible to avoid looking at what its pushers are selling. Seriously, how does the left manage to do that? How do you form a party line on what drives Islamic violence, both here and abroad, or what is Islamic imperialism without taking any interest in what the Islamists are actually saying drives them?   

Those flag waving killer rapists in Syria had it infinitely better and freer in Sydney and Melbourne than their parents or any other generation did ever. That the left is setting up Australia as somehow responsible for these criminals and their crimes is not just offensively wrong but dangerous. It feeds the contagion. It reaffirms, rewards and encourages it. 

This article has two highlights. A link to an outstanding article by Paul Monk that accurately frames this an an ideological battle; and a global one at that. His imagery of the nature of the conflict is white hot truth. Highly recommended.

As it was in the SMH I would most certainly have missed this must read. Than you Tad Tietze

The other highlight is the piece nails the ratty irrelevance of the left's squawks about numbers in this horrible war of nerves that this life hating fist of ideologies is waging within itself and against the rest of the world.

One horrible death can move a whole people. Recall the people of Melbourne getting out in numbers in memory of a young woman taken and murdered in the streets by a random psychopath.  Tell them that someone is ten times more likely to slip in the bath than encounter a killer psychopath

The left's use of statistics cut to fit the take of the party line is worth a post on its own. Coming up.

The left does not understand people. It's remarkable but true. This is a consequence of their increasing isolation and elitism. The tragedy is that the Islamists and the head cutters of ISIS and Hamas, and Hezbollah, and AQ and Tehran andl for that matter all the rest across Africa and Asia and into Europe and beyond, know people all too well.  

The Islamists and their fascist fronts run rings around their Western leftist allies.   

I'm astonished that a card-carrying member of the Left would not know that by definition terrorism is the conscious and deliberate terrorising of a civilian population to further a political purpose, since terrorism was invented by the Irgun in the 1930s to further their Zionist ideological purposes, and every respectable Leftie has been well-schooled in excusing the mass murder perpetrated by Muslims on the grounds the poor little darlings have been grievously provoked by the evil Israelis.

The political purpose of Islamist terrorists has been the same since Mohammed was alive: to cover the entire earth with the Ammah, the Nation of Islam, and in the process to offer all infidels a simple choice, bend the knee to the mullahs or die.

In that respect it is remarkably similar to the Marxist ideology served by Dr Tad: come the revolution, you either bend the knee to commissars like Dr Tad or you get worked to death in the nearest gulag.

Salaam eleikum, sat sri akaal, and tashi delek Chrisji

You're right, I am abysmally ignorant about these matters, and what's worse I am prone to display my ignorance in the languages of the cultures under consideration of which I happen to speak a little.

I'm sure that's not a mistake you ever made with the many Aboriginal languages you speak.

Actually, despite living in a Sikh household for a while during my 14 months on the subcontinent, my Punjabi never rose above the abysmal.

I did, however, get to see the heavily-bloodstained (windowless) back room of another Sikh family's house in New Delhi, where a Hindu mob had massacred 20 or so family members hiding in the wake of Indira Gandhi's assassination by her Sikh bodyguards, so if your point is that any community is capable of sectarian violence I would clearly agree.

Most of the little I know of radical Islam comes from two Iranian refugee friends, one of whom insists on calling herself Persian, not Iranian, and denies that she speaks Farsi which she insists on calling Persian too. Regular Islam I know (if at all) from my many Urdu-speaking friends, and from a token Palestinian friend from Ramallah (his family fled to Oz in 1973 when he was a teenager) who insists on calling himself Jordanian! I met his uncle by chance in Varanasi/Banaras/Kashi running an Arab restaurant, just to show how small the world can be.

It has been many decades since I sat down to tea for an hour or two with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, so my Tibetan is a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that (even in the original Pali) Buddhism has never been a religion spread by armed force, nor has it ever spoken of turning the world into a single Buddhist nation, theocratic or otherwise.

Please point me to any verses in the Guru Granth Sahib I may have missed, but IMHO the Sikh warrior tradition is likewise all about defending the Golden Temple in Amritsar etc, and Sikhism has never had territorial (let alone proselytising) ambitions beyond the borders of the Punjab.

Ditto Judaism and Israel, although I can't help observing that once again New Matilda makes excuses for the enemies of Israel whose warcrimes vastly exceed hers in both scope and venality.

Christian history is rather more vexing, although I love to point out to those who (rightly) condemn Islamofascists as just mediaeval barbarians, that when Christians were the mediaeval barbarians back in mediaeval times, the light of civilisation (and what today would be called the scientific method) was kept alive in Muslim lands, returning to Europe to ignite the Enlightenment.

Certainly Christianity did not start, unlike Islam, as a religion feared for the violence its adherents wreaked on their neighbours, with the open encouragement of Mohammed. While the armies of the Prophet were sent to conquer territory, the Disciples of Christ went in peace to spread the gospel. Many Indians believe Doubting Thomas landed in Kerala in 50 A.D. and converted the base for what is the Syriac Church in southern India today before being martyred in Tamil Nadu – there are many millions more Indian Christians in this indigenous church than in all the churches started by Western missionaries in India over the centuries.

As an atheist I am an equal-opportunity derider of religious belief, but I find it striking that none of the European empires imposed their variants of the Christian religion on the peoples they colonised, let alone offered the Islamic choice of convert or die. Certainly the latter was hugely effective in multiplying the population of Muslims in India a millionfold under Moghul rule, leaving the legacy of the divided subcontinent we have today, with Muslim Pakistan pointing its "Islamic bombs" at an India with more Muslims living within its borders than live in Pakistan and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) combined.

As for my being an Islamophobe, if you are not scared of Jihadists you haven't been paying attention. I realised I had underestimated the dangers of radical Islam when the man who had sung about the peace train converted to Islam and suddenly thought it was fine to gun a man down in the street for writing a book.

Not that any of that excuses the fear industry and its (depressingly successful) assault on our liberties.

Khuda hafiz

ऑज़ी गरेग

I suppose it is incumbent on me to point out that aussiegreg's otherwise fine piece is marred by one little piece of commonly held bullshit.

Irgun did not invent political terrorism in the thirties. Not even bomb terrorism.

Anarchists and Irish republicans were blowing apart pubs. post offices, banks and people from Chicago to London since the start of the century . You don't even want to know what the Bolsheviks were doing in Europe and if much of the Spanish civil war was not politically inspired terrorism aimed at a helpless civilian population then we need to define what we are talking about.  

Besides the worst thing Irgun ever did was think that a two minute bomb warning from a Jew to a bunch of British officers at the bar of their HQ would be taken at all seriously.

They were still laughing when their drinks exploded, from some accounts.

There seems to be a simple answer to the vexing issue that "Multiculturism equals Tribalism" and that the Australian Governments authority and prestige is so poor that it subcontracts its message/responsibilities to tribal "chiefs". The answer is beyond the reach of politicians who fear an empowered citizenry more than "terrorists"

That is why they deny the one glue to make a nation of many tribes. That is a Bill of Rights where all are certified equal.