How To Disarm Good People: here you can learn how its done. Works like a charm, for our enemies.
“We are oppressed, persecuted people. We’re a minority. We’re under siege. We are wrongly accused. We’re victims of bigotry, hatred, and Islamophobia….”
When perps claim victimhood:
IN THE BOOK, The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout says something really interesting. Her book is about normal, everyday sociopaths (also known by the somewhat outdated term, “psychopath”). In other words, the book is not about serial killers, but about the neighbor who drives you crazy, the spouse who seems dedicated to making your life miserable, the cruel, unfeeling boss, etc.
A sociopath is someone who feels no empathy for other human beings. The consequences of this lack are enormous. These people are, in many ways, not recognizably human. And there is no cure for sociopathy. It is not caused by upbringing. Therapy only makes them worse.
About two percent of the population is sociopathic, and those who are in a relationship with a sociopath need to understand what makes sociopaths tick. The more you know, the less likely you are to be fooled, used, or destroyed by a sociopath.
But Martha Stout said something interesting for us here in our conversation about Islam. She wrote about the techniques sociopaths use to exploit people around them. Sociopaths use people. And there is one thing experienced sociopaths use more than anything else because it works so well with normal people. Their ultra-effective weapon is to evoke pity. Stout wrote:
The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.
I first learned this when I was still a graduate student in psychology and had the opportunity to interview a court-referred patient the system had already identified as a “psychopath.” He was not violent, preferring instead to swindle people out of their money with elaborate investment scams. Intrigued by this individual and what could possibly motivate him…I asked, “What is important to you in your life? What do you want more than anything else?” I thought he might say “getting money,” or “staying out of jail,” which were the activities to which he devoted most of his time. Instead, without a moment’s hesitation, he replied, “Oh, that’s easy. What I like better than anything else is when people feel sorry for me. The thing I really want more than anything else out of life is people’s pity.”
I was astonished, and more than a little put off. I think I would have liked him better if he had said “staying out of jail,” or even “getting money.” Also, I was mystified. Why would this man — why would anyone — wish to be pitied, let alone wish to be pitied above all other ambitions? I could not imagine. But now, after twenty-five years of listening to victims, I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity. As obvious as the nose on one’s face, and just as difficult to see without the help of a mirror, the explanation is that good people will let pathetic individuals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity.
More than admiration — more even than fear — pity from good people is carte blanche. When we pity, we are, at least for the moment, defenseless, and like so many of the other positive human characteristics that bind us together in groups…our emotional vulnerability when we pity is used against us…
The reason I thought that was interesting and relevant is that pity is one of the most common techniques orthodox Muslims use, and it is the main reason they’ve been able to get away with as much as they have so far. They exploit the egalitarian,multiculturalist, good-hearted nature of non-Muslims. They evoke pity and then use our own kindness and our desire to “get along with others” against us.
I was just reading the book, Tripoli: The United States’ First War on Terror. The ruler of Tripoli had been seizing U.S. merchant ships, adding the ship to his own fleet, keeping the contents of the ship, and selling the captured sailors into slavery. It was a very lucrative pirating business. The U.S. wanted Tripoli to stop it, of course. The ruler of Tripoli said, “Sure, we’ll stop attacking your ships if you pay us tribute every year.”
So for awhile the U.S. paid the tribute because they were a new country and had no navy to speak of, and they wanted to continue with their overseas trade. But the ruler of Tripoli decided the tribute they had agreed to wasn’t enough, so he demanded more and when he didn’t get it, he started seizing U.S. ships again.
Meanwhile, the U.S. was frantically building a navy, and by this time had enough warships to put up a fight, so they did. Suddenly Tripoli’s ruler wanted to talk peace. But in the negotiations, the man negotiating on behalf of the ruler asked for a gift of money. The U.S. said no, absolutely not. The U.S. said basically, “You have not been fair in any way and have only acted as our enemy, and no, we will not pay you to stop the fighting.”
Then Tripoli’s negotiator tried to appeal to pity: “But Tripoli is very poor,” he pleaded. “she cannot subsist without the generosity of her friends; give something then on the score of charity.” In this case, Tripoli had already established a poor reputation with the Americans, so the pity plea did not work. But even after the U.S. negotiator said no, Tripoli’s negotiator tried to make the U.S. negotiator feel guilty for not feeling pity. He asked, basically, “You say you want peace but you won’t give this gift of charity to obtain the peace?”
Islam uses the pity plea anywhere it can. Mohammad used it, Muslims in Tripoli were using it, and Muslims today are still at it. In their dealings with powerful non-Muslims, the basic stance of Islam is: “We are an oppressed, persecuted people. We’re a minority. We’re under siege. We are wrongly accused. We’re the victims of bigotry, hatred, and Islamophobia.” And if they can’t find anything to point to that proves their oppression, they literally create something (click here for an example).
It’s like a game they are playing, except this is a game with very serious consequences. A single sociopath using the appeal to pity can completely ruin the lives of many people. And this is, of course, nothing compared with what orthodox Muslims have done. They’ve killed over 270 million people since they started. They’ve ruined even more lives, and they are affecting the lives and livelihoods of billions of us today.
I would like to spend my time working on productive, positive, life-affirming activities. Instead, I am spending many hours of my short time here on earth trying to stop the insidious Islamic encroachment, reading and writing about things I wish didn’t exist. It’s an upsetting topic. It’s disturbing. But the consequences of ignoring it are even worse, so I devote a large portion of my life to it.
And, of course, I’m not alone. Each of us has been influenced in hundreds of ways we don’t even know about by the third jihad (and the first two jihads).
It’s important to understand how they are Islamizing the free world so successfully. One of the most effective techniques they use is the appeal to pity. The good news is that as soon as you see the appeal for what it is, the game is over, the magic disappears, the trance is lifted.
The above is an excerpt from the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam by Citizen Warrior.
Denmark: Jews Banned From Displaying Israeli Flag At “Diversity” Festival, Officials Worried May Provoke Muslims And LeftistsOctober 27, 2012
Via Copenhagen Post:
A city hall request that the Israeli flag not be displayed at a street festival intended to promote diversity has Jewish community leaders wondering what “diversity” really means to some city leaders.
During planning meetings for September’s Smag Verden – Mangfoldighedsfest, a celebration of the foods and cultures of different countries, Jewish participants were warned that some would interpret the flying of the Israeli flag as a provocation.
“We were told that is was better if we did not fly our flag,” Malgorzata H Hansen, who represented local Jews at the meetings, told Berlingske newspaper.
Organisers said they feared clashes between Jewish, Muslim and leftist groups if the Israeli flag was displayed.
Originally, representatives of TaskForce Inklusion, the group responsible for communicating with all of the groups participating in the festival, told the Jewish representatives that all participating associations were being asked not to bring flags.
HT: golem bar
France’s President Francois Hollande(Image Reuters/ Israel National News)French President Francois Hollande stripped British fashion designer John Galliano, who was convicted last year of making anti-Semitic remarks, of France’s prestigious Legion d’Honneur award.Galliano, 51, was involved in two drunken episodes in a small Paris bar and restaurant. His anti-Semitic remarks, some of them caught on video, led to his conviction last year on charges of “public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity.”
In February 2011, Galliano berated a museum curator about being Jewish and uttered racial insults at her friend, who is of South Asian origin.
The court also saw a video of Galliano, the previous November, declaring his love for Adolf Hitler.
Galliano blamed his outbursts on addictions to drugs and alcohol.
Hollande, elected in May, has been outspoken in condemning anti-Semitism and crimes against Jews committed by the French police under Nazi occupation.
The Legion d’Honneur is France’s highest award and is given to individuals who have served France and its ideals.
it is a start. It won’t bring back Jewish citizens that were murdered in France because of the lie of Multiculturalism… but it is a start. Some Cultures are superior to others. That isn’t racism… and you enable hate when you deny that some cultures are hateful. The fashion world is as a whole a very sick culture.
(Ted Belman) Shaul Magid, professor of Jewish Studies at Indiana U, asks, “What if the Left Abandonned Israel?” and suggests that Israel would go to hell in a handbasket. “Be careful what you wish for,” he warns.For him, the left are “basically liberal-minded and believers in civil rights and the rights of the oppressed — at least in the abstract.” He suggests that the “messianics and revisionists” of the right, on the other hand, aren’t. Everyone believes in civil rights in the abstract. It’s when you deal with reality other considerations and values come into place.
I also believe in the “rights of the oppressed,” but I differ with the left in that I see the Jews in Israel as the oppressed ones, not the Palestinians (at least, the Palestinians are not oppressed by the Jews).
We Israelis are oppressed by everyone, including the U.N., the State Department, the EU, and the Muslims, including the Palestinians. We are oppressed by 60,000-plus rockets aimed at us by our immediate neighbors and by threats of annihilation. And for what? It’s either because we exist, which the left and the Arabs think is a crime, or because we are “occupiers,” which much of the world finds unconscionable. They forget that UNSC Res. 242 authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had recognized and secure borders. They argue that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies, even though Israel is not occupying the land of another signatory to the treaty as provided therein.
But even if the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply, Israel’s primarily obligation is to treat the people occupied humanely. In this regard, 95% of the Palestinians are totally governed by the Palestinian Authority. Nowhere in the treaty does it say that the occupier must end the occupation. In any event, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is fully set out in the Oslo Accords or 1995. There is no suggestion in it that Israel must end the occupation without a negotiated agreement. So spare me the crocodile tears about the “occupation.”
The condemnation of Israel is based on the belief that the disputed territories are Palestinian. How so? They have never exercised sovereignty over said lands.
The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan in 1948 that would have led to their sovereignty and invaded Israel instead. For the next nineteen years the West Bank was under Jordanian control, and no one ever called for a Palestinian state. In 1967, the Arabs were utterly defeated in a war they began. As a result, the UNSC passed Res. 242, which does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories. At the Khartoum Conference, the Arabs rejected Res. 242 and agreed on the three nos: no recognition, no negotiations, and no peace. Arafat accepted Res. 242 because such acceptance was a precondition to entering the Oslo Accords, but he never agreed to its terms. And now they reject negotiations.
Israel, on the other hand, can claim sovereignty over these lands, pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 1919 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922 which granted the Jews the right to reconstitute their homeland in Palestine and the right to close settlement of the land. She can also claim sovereignty over these lands by virtue of a continuous presence in the land for 3,000 years, by virtue of 1,000 years of sovereignty, by virtue of acquiring the land in a defensive war, or by insisting that only the Jordan River would constitute secure borders.
Magid quotes Zachary Braiterman with approval:
I used to think that American Jews had the right and obligation to stake ideological claims in Israeli politics. I was wrong. I don’t have anything to say. Legalize outposts? Go ahead. Beat the hell out of Hamas or Hezbullah? I won’t object. Hit the Iranians? I hope you all know what you’re doing, because the mess is yours if you make it, and there is not a lot that the American Jewish community will be (able) to do if things go south. Desecrate mosques, uproot olive trees, beat up a Danish demonstrator, pass racist legislation, muzzle criticism, harass people at the airport?
Each one of these complaints shows a profound ignorance of the law or the context. Each one can be rebutted to the satisfaction of a fair minded person.
Historically, the Zionism of Braiterman was the norm. Even given the less-than-charitable things Ben-Gurion had to say about the Arabs and the ways in which Israel treated its Arab population during times of conflict, the Zionist mainstream was committed to a humanistic and liberal ethos, even as it failed in significant ways.
This is true, but why did it fail? Because the Arabs would have none of it. And that’s the point: why it is no longer the norm. The Jewish left prefer to ignore the reality. The Arabs are dedicated to destroying the Jewish state, in phases if necessary. The charters of both Hamas and Fatah say so. Sharia says so. The incessant preaching of hatred says so. The support for terrorism says so. The unwillingness to compromise their maximalist demands says so. Yet the left blame Israel for the lack of peace.
The unspoken merger of the messianic and neo-revisionist right, coupled with the politicization of the haredi has given rise to an increasingly uncompromising ethnocentrism and, arguably, a redefined Zionism.
True enough. But by characterizing the new Zionism as “ethnocentric,” Megid is opening up a can of worms. He is embracing the canard that Zionism is racism. He is arguing against the Jewish particular in favor of universalism or multiculturalism. Those values might be appropriate for America, though I prefer the melting pot to multiculturalism. In fact, so do most Americans and Europeans. Multiculturalism has proven a failure, and its bitter fruits have yet to be realized in full.
Megid regrets that Israel was not able to “attain a balance necessary for its rightful place as a society among the nations of the free world.” But why must Israel be like everyone else? Why can’t it remain a pumpernickel in a store of white bread? Besides, Israel is in the Middle East, which is not part of the free world. The Arabs are barring Jews and Christians from Arab countries. In Egypt and Nigeria and elsewhere, they are killing Christians and burning churches. No multiculturalism for them. No universalism for them, except when Islam dominates the world.
While the Jewish left embraces the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad — and, I believe to America’s detriment — Israel prefers to keep her distance from the forces which are bent on destroying her. In order to defend herself, she must embrace her ethnicity, not eschew it.
I accept that many Jews who embraced the Zionism of their youth “understand quite well and are deeply informed — not only about the political realities but about the underlying history of the conflict.” But so are the Jews who embrace the new Zionism. The difference being that the former want Israel to be a state of all its citizens rather than a Jewish state.
The latter apparently is too Jewish for them.
In the end, it’s not about old and new Zionism, but rather about survival. The left wants Israel to give in to the demands of the Arabs and the international community in order to survive, though history does not support this belief. The right believes that doing so would lead to Israel’s destruction. The right prefers peace through strength.
Anyone left in the left who isn’t dealing with these issues is in denial.
(Sultan Knish)Liberal Jews have become the eunuchs in the modern Byzantiums, trusted to administer the system because they have no interests of their own. When Jewish groups are asked to define Jewish interests they inevitably reel off a series of liberal platitudes about immigration, abortion, tolerance and gay rights. It’s not that Jewish interests don’t exists, it’s that they have been steadily excluded from the dialogue space and liberal policies have been treated as their equivalent. Israel is the last stand. It’s the last Jewish interest that is specifically ethnic and religious, rather than some vague nostrum about Tikkun Olam and what Jewish values have to say about importing HIV positive Peruvians. And it’s no wonder that it’s so fiercely under attack.
The eunuchs can be trusted because they have no families and no children. They have no future and so they have no outside interests. They are contemptible for those reasons, but also useful for those reasons. You can trust a eunuch to see to things without worrying that he will selfishly help his own, because he has no ‘own’, he is an isolate, a dead end, a withered branch. The liberal Jew has the same role and for the same reason. His identity is a transitory thing on the path to integration. He has a future, but not a Jewish future. Like the eunuch, he is a dead branch of the tree.
Everyone knows Jews are clannish. It’s one of the stereotypes, right up there with cheap. But the Jewish eunuch can’t be clannish, not really, because the eunuch has no clan except his own kind and they aren’t much of a worry because eunuchs don’t reproduce. They may form their own groups and chatter on about whatever it is eunuchs care about, but everyone knows they have no future. Wait a few generations and they’ll be gone.
And that is the trouble with Israel, it is much too alive. It is a Jewish country swarming with Jews. It actually calls on ethnic and religious allegiances. It is the last Jewish interest there is. It is the dream muddying the waters of the eunuch’s loyalties. And it has to be destroyed for the liberals eunuchs to keep their place in the bureaucracy of the postmodern borderless state. (MORE)
I usually like to do a cartoon when I see a great Sultan Knish post… I don’t think you want to see me drawing this…. so I’m posting the whole thing. Ouch!