http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=intolerance Thu, 23 May 2013 23:29:49 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=intolerance Wed, 22 May 2013 19:05:42 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c29_1369263769 Luke 22 36 . http://www.jonmcnaughton.com/ . I like to paint pictures that express how I feel about what is happening in America. We have a disease. It's infecting every aspect of our society and it's time we did something about it. Some of these people I really like and some I don't, but for the sake of our health, our children and our sanity, we need to take drastic action quickly. What if we could bring them all together, put them on a deserted island and quarantine them for say a hundred years? They believe they have all the answers to everything. But every liberal idea I've ever seen has led to total failure. If they were right, their new island home would be a utopia before long. Let's look at the most liberal communities in the country. New York City, Detroit, Chicago...how are they doing? Yes, I say let's quarantine them and let nature take its course. You might have this disease if you believe: We should remove guns from law-abiding citizens who have a right to protect themselves, and leave them in the hands of criminals who will acquire the firearms illegally anyway they can. How many gun-free zones do you know that have low murder rates? The same liberals who are trying to save us, turn around and demand abortion rights for women at the expense of over 53 million human lives. Raise the national debt to meet the continued demand for welfare and entitlement spending at the expense of our country's economic future. Fight a war against terrorism without identifying who the enemy is because of political correctness and then allow illegal aliens to cross the border by the millions. Provide kid glove treatment to Islamic radicals and unfriendly regimes and then show religious intolerance to Jews and Christians. Allow a minority of Gay Rights Activists to dictate the definition of marriage and force Christians to comply. Use environmentalism to thwart the energy interests of Americans at a time of great financial stress and national security. McNaughton Answers to Liberal Questions: Why are you making fun of these people? Most of my paintings are serious in nature, (although liberals find them amusing) this one is more of a satire. This means to me, that although it is humorous on the surface, the underlying message is very serious. Liberals use humor relentlessly as a tool to suppress conservative ideas. As always, if my paintings can cause someone to think about or debate the serious issues, it was successful. Are you selling prints of this? No, there are copyright restrictions. There are some things more important than money. My hope is to help people wake up to effects of liberalism in America. Do you think all liberals are bad? Well, yes, but I'm talking about their ideologies, which are destructive. I have many liberal friends. I know many good people that for some unfortunate reason are infected by the disease. How did you decide whom to include in the painting? I chose well-known liberals in different fields that influence Americans every day. There are many more who I could have included that I think are spreading the disease. Perhaps, some liberals will be pleased if they were included in the painting; like a "badge of honor." Why is Satan in the painting? Are you saying these people are Satanic?? I don't know that. Perhaps most of them are just deceived. Satan is what I call the "Number One Liberal." Liberalism is about control. Satan wants to promise you everything in exchange for your freedom. He uses lies; deceit and compulsion to have you do his bidding. In the end, you are left with nothing. How has any liberal idea ever ended well? It is instant satisfaction at the expense of your soul. Yes, liberalism is a disease. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c29_1369263769 Luke 22 36 Jon McNaughton: Liberalism is a Disease . Jon McNaughton, Liberalism, Disease, Obama, Satan, New York City, Detroit, Chicago, abortion, welfare, entitlement, terrorism, political correctness, illegal aliens, religious intolerance. Mon, 20 May 2013 21:04:50 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=35e_1369097797 RussleJimmiez "Daily Show" Creator Lizz Winstead: Oklahoma Tornado Meant for Conservativehttps://twitter.com/lizzwinstead/status/336580629191856128 her facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/lizzwinstead her twitter: https://twitter.com/lizzwinstead 'Daily Show' Creator Says Okla. Tornado Meant for Conservatives, Apologizes Lizz Winstead heard about the tornado touching down in Oklahoma today and her liberal ideology quickly kicked in. Winstead, who created The Daily Show and uses social media to promote her far-left views, sent out this Twitter joke earlier today: This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives. Social media brushback quickly followed, and Winstead served up a speedy apology for letting her progressive nature supercede a sense of decency toward the victims of the tornado. Made a political joke, Twas before devastation revealed. In hindsight, had I understood, I would have refrained. Beyond sorry. #LetMeHaveIt http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=35e_1369097797 RussleJimmiez Obama voting Liberal "Daily Show" Creator Lizz Winstead: Oklahoma Tornado Meant for Conservative..24 chilldren killed, infants being pulled from m daily, show, jon, stweart, lizz winstead, leftist, left, wing, liberal, hate, intolerance, dead, children, oklahoma, tornado, democrats, are, scum Sat, 18 May 2013 16:47:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=462_1368909463 harryk (CLICK on &quot; this infographic&quot; to see the complete MAP ) a recent study by two Swedish economists has shed light on the world's most and least racially tolerant countries, and the results might surprise you. While the United States is ranked among the most tolerant on the globe (some may find this predictable, others may not), Europe presents a greater range of tolerance levels, with several countries in the second and third least tolerant ranges. The study was aimed at discerning a correlation between a country's level of economic freedom and its racial tolerance. The latter was defined by one simple question, as asked in the World Values Survey: Whom would you not want as a neighbor? Those who selected &quot;people of other races&quot; were categorized as intolerant for the purposes of this investigation. Countries were then ranked by percentage of responses: the fewer &quot;intolerant&quot; respondents, the more tolerant the country. While the Swedish researches found no conclusive results regarding any strong correlation between economic development and tolerance, a recent Washington Post article article went back to the original survey source and compiled a greater sample of data for the purposes of determining other potential relationships between a country and its perceived level of tolerance. According to this infographic , the U.S. falls into the most tolerant category, with only 0-4.9% of those surveyed responding that they would not want to live near people of other races. Our neighbor to the north responded in kind, while Mexico ranked in the second-tier of tolerance, making the totality of North America look like a big amalgamation of racial harmony. While this may or may not actually be the case (people lie on surveys, the Washington Post authors note) it certainly provides a compelling lens for analyzing the less concordant results of Europe. Albania appears to be the least tolerant on the European continent in the second lowest 30-39.9% range. While potential explanations for such a severe distinction from its neighboring states abound, arriving at a concrete conclusion for intolerance is likely a futile pursuit. Croatia, for example, ranks in the 5-9.9%t category (the same as Mexico), achieving the most tolerant in the Balkan region. Both ethnic Croats and Albanians were involved in the conflicts that embroiled the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, and such ethnic strife undoubtedly contributes to a heightened sensitivity to ethnic and racial relations. However, given its distinctly intolerant stance, Albania, for reasons not easily explained by its history of conflict, seems to have lagged behind in recovering from regional tensions. While Albania's ranking may be difficult to explain, it is not the sole European state at the intolerant end of the spectrum. France ranked just above, in the 20-29.9% range. In contrast, adjacent Germany and Spain, fell into the same tier as Mexico and Croatia. Rounding out the bottom of the list are India, Jordan, Bangladesh, and Hong Kong in the 40%+ range. A potential explanation for this, is that the less heterogeneous the society, the less tolerant. While this logic might follow for Albania, what is France's excuse? On the flipside, one might argue that changes in patterns to immigration or perceived and unwanted changes to a social fabric might play a role. Remember when France decided to ban religious garments in public ? That was probably a good indication of where France was at on the tolerance spectrum, no survey needed. Ultimately, the survey presents an intriguing model for analyzing tolerance between countries. But with the above in mind, it is only a small piece of the larger picture. Wherever states are suppressing civil liberties in broad and unapologetic ways, intolerance is likely lurking not too far below. (policymic web page) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=462_1368909463 harryk Map reveals the most racist countries in the world. racist,world,map,countries, Sat, 18 May 2013 08:35:04 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6f_1368880213 dfaugust Christian florist refuses to succumb to 'intimidation' A florist in Washington state who has been sued by her own state attorney general is fighting back against charges that she discriminated against two homosexual men planning to get "married." Barronelle Stutzman, 68, owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland. She has sold flowers to homosexuals and has hired homosexuals, but in March refused to provide floral arrangements for a homosexual "marriage" saying it violated her religious beliefs. Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued, and now Stutzman is suing the attorney general for violating her constitutional rights. Dale Schowengerdt of Alliance Defending Freedom talked with OneNewsNow about Stutzman's situation. "Everyone knows that plenty of florists are willing to assist in same-sex ceremonies," he points out. "So the state really has no compelling reason to force Barronelle Stutzman to violate her deeply held religious beliefs." The attorney suggests Ferguson is fighting against what the U.S. Constitution is intended to safeguard. "In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom - not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith," he argues, "because business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. "It's that freedom that gives America its cherished diversity, really, and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity." In the lawsuit, Stutzman clearly states that promotion of same-gender marriage is what is at issue - not serving customers who identify as homosexuals. http://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2013/05/17/christian-florist-refuses-to-succumb-to-%E2%80%98intimidation%E2%80%99 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6f_1368880213 dfaugust Christian florist refuses to succumb to 'intimidation' American freedom, &quot;liberal&quot; tyranny, homosexuals, oppression Sun, 05 May 2013 07:19:43 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=163_1367752206 kauan Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315483/How-anti-racism-lesson-INCREASE-pupil-intolerance-They-cause-animosity-cultures.html Children who are given anti-racism lessons in school are more likely to be intolerant outside the classroom, a major study found yesterday. It said accusing white pupils of racism causes animosity, and discussing sensitive ethnic concerns such as honour killings paints minority group children in a bad light. The survey said children who live in mixed neighbourhoods are often free of hostility towards other racial groups. But it found that 'when more attention in class is being paid to the multicultural society, the liberalising effect of positive contact in class on youngsters' xenophobic attitude decreases'. The project carried out in the Netherlands comes at a time of controversy over the place of multiculturalism - which blames Britain for historic racism and demands the encouragement of minority cultures - in the national curriculum and teaching in British schools. Education Secretary Michael Gove has been under fire from Left-wing academics over plans to stop teaching teenagers about topics such as 'the wide cultural, social and ethnic diversity of Britain from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century and how this has helped shape Britain's identity'. Instead, in future pupils will be taught much more British history. The study, published in the European Sociological Review, was based on a survey of 1,444 pupils aged 14 and 15 in ten schools in the city of Nijmegen. The teenagers, drawn from different class and racial backgrounds, and with differing academic abilities, were questioned on their attitudes to those from different ethnic backgrounds and about multicultural teaching in their schools. It said boys tended to be more intolerant of other groups than girls, and intolerance was greatest among those with strong religious or ethnic identity, among those from Turkish or Moroccan backgrounds, and those with the lowest educational achievements. But it said the teaching of multiculturalism had an 'unexpected negative effect'. It added: 'The impact of positive inter- ethnic contact in class disappears or even reverses when multiculturalism is more emphasised during lessons. Discussing discrimination and the customs and habits of other cultures during lessons affects the youngsters' xenophobic attitudes indirectly.' The report added that bad feelings among minority groups could be generated by discussion of topics such as honour killings or female circumcision. Animosity could also be caused by 'a one-sided offender- victim approach to racism'. The findings echo the views of Bradford head teacher Ray Honeyford, who was driven from his job nearly 30 years ago over his claim that multicultural teaching was harming pupils. Mr Honeyford said that pupil performance was hindered by 'the notion of the multi-racial curriculum urged by the authorities, and of making colour and race significant, high-profile issues in the classroom'. Patricia Morgan, an author on the family and education, said yesterday: 'If you rub children's noses in their supposed racism, they resent it. 'Pupils are being accused of things they haven't thought or done. Multiculturalism attempts to manipulate children's thoughts, beliefs and emotions, it amounts to indoctrination, and it doesn't work. It is counter-productive. 'This study shows that when people try to manipulate children's minds, it bounces back on them.' http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=163_1367752206 kauan Anti-Racism Lessons Increase Pupils' <span class="highlight">Intolerance</span>!!! Europe The Netherlands Holland Survey Racism Antiracism Intolerance Pupils Immigration Integration Immigrants Tue, 14 May 2013 13:33:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98a_1368552434 smyle Presumably few Republican operatives have a better handle on the national Republican party's efforts to court Hispanic voters than Pablo Pantoja, a native of Puerto Rico, and Florida State University alum appointed by the Republican National Committee to oversee H ispanic outreach in Florida last year . He also worked as a field director in the 2010 midterm elections. Now - amid another debate over immigration reform and a widely touted Heritage foundation study on immigrants touted by a fellow who used to argue that Hispanics have a lower IQ than non-Hispanic immigrants - Pantojo has decided he's more comfortable joining the Democratic party. Here's an email he sent today: Friend, Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party. It doesn't take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others. Look no further; a well-known organization recently confirms the intolerance of that which seems different or strange to them. Studies geared towards making - human beings - viewed as less because of their immigrant status to outright unacceptable claims, are at the center of the immigration debate. Without going too deep on everything surrounding immigration today, the more resounding example this past week was reported by several media outlets. A researcher included as part of a past dissertation his theory that "the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ." The researcher reinforces these views by saying "No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against." Although the organization distanced themselves from those assertions, other immigration-related research is still padded with the same racist and eugenics-based innuendo. Some Republican leaders have blandly (if at all) denied and distanced themselves from this but it doesn't take away from the culture within the ranks of intolerance. The pseudo-apologies appear to be a quick fix to deep-rooted issues in the Republican Party in hopes that it will soon pass and be forgotten. The complete disregard of those who are in disadvantage is also palpable. We are not looking at an isolated incident of rhetoric or research. Others subscribe to motivating people to action by stating, "In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That's a lot of Democratic voters coming." The discourse that moves the Republican Party is filled with this anti-immigrant movement and overall radicalization that is far removed from reality. Another quick example beyond the immigration debate happened during CPAC this year when a supporter shouted ""For giving him shelter and food for all those years?" while a moderator explained how Frederick Douglass had written a letter to his slave master saying that he forgave him for "all the things you did to me." I think you get the idea. When the political discourse resorts to intolerance and hate, we all lose in what makes America great and the progress made in society. Although I was born an American citizen, I feel that my experience, and that of many from Puerto Rico, is intertwined with those who are referred to as illegal. My grandfather served in an all-Puerto Rican segregated Army unit, the 65th Infantry Regiment. He then helped, along my grandmother, shatter glass ceilings for Puerto Rican women raising my aunt to become the first Puerto Rican woman astronomer with a PhD in astrophysics (an IQ of a genius as far as I'm concerned). Puerto Ricans, as many other Americans still today have to face issues of discrimination in voting and civil rights. Regardless of what political affiliation people choose, my respect for some remains. I don't expect all Hispanics to do the same (although I would hope so) but I'm taking a stand against this culture of intolerance. I am also making a modest contribution (here: http://bit.ly/12uf3g8) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for the efforts in helping protect the rights of immigrants and civil liberties in general. With warm regards, -pablo http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/former-rnc-hispanic-outreach-director-in-florida-switches-to-democrat/2120764 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98a_1368552434 smyle Fed up, RNC's Fla Hispanic outreach director becomes Democrat Pablo Pantoja, culture of intolerance, Heritage foundation study, immigration reform, Hispanics have a lower IQ Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:02:00 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13c_1367225340 kauan Source: http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.hu/2013/04/belgian-weatherman-victim-of-muslim.html Luc Trullemans says he isn't a racist. The RTL weatherman, who has just been suspended following a slip-up on Facebook, says today that he acted "in the heat of anger". We spoke about it yesterday. Luc Trullemans was dismissed by RTL after having posted a racist comment on his Facebook page. After having apologised to the Muslim community, the weatherman came back to the attack that provoked his anger. "I was driving at around 50 - 60 km/h, but that apparently wasn't enough for the people who were following me", he explains to one of our colleagues from Sud Presse. "Anticipating the red light a bit further up, I start to slow down. The car behind me started to flash its headlights then overtook me before cutting in and braking. I beeped the horn intensively then the driver started to accelerate then brake suddenly, several times." According to Luc Trullemans, the occupants of the car whom he describes as "people of the South, dressed in traditional garb" then got out of the vehicle. "They told me to get out but I didn't want to because I was afraid," he says. "They were very aggressive. They told me I shouldn't have sounded the horn at them. I replied that there were rules to be respected such as white lines and speed limits. They retorted that this was their place and that I should impose my rules on them. They also told me that I was just a little Belgian," he says, declaring that one of the individuals struck a blow into his car. Once the light was green again, Luc Trullemans managed to get away but the other vehicle followed him, he says. "I then continued on my way to the RTL car park, where they left," he concludes, saying that he was really in a panic. This was the reason for his message on Facebook, he continues. "I am not racist", he says in his own defence. "I also had a relationship for 5 years with an Algerian". The party concerned also insisted on defending her ex in a message published on the web. "Lucky isn't racist at all!", she writes. The day after the suspension of Luc Trullemans was announced, several petitions were started against the decision.Source: 7Sur7.be This is what Fdesouche.com says was his Facebook rant. I can't be sure about it because the original has been deleted. There's also some information that he posted a rant years ago that survived on the web. So I can't be sure whether this is the new rant for which he's been sacked or an old one. It's pretty good, either way! I'm not going to be delicate in my words. I'll probably be taken for a racist. I DON'T CARE! It's time that someone said out loud what everyone is thinking deep down and this message is addressed to you ... MUSLIM friends. I'm a non-practising Christian and I don't hit people over the head with it. It's not because I believe in God that I have to put aside the values I've been taught. You leave your respective countries because of dictatorship, war, violence, hatred and death. You come to establish yourselves among us, to be able to flee all that and live happily, in health, sheltered from everything you left behind. And now you expect to import all your ideas into your home where we give you everything you need to help you integrate! We give you a roof, food, money. We register you in a school so you can learn the language, we help you acquire the best knowledge of our country, your studies are paid for to help your integration on the labour market. But according to you it's still not ENOUGH! But I say to you: it's ENOUGH!!! Enough of wanting to change our customs and traditions, enough of bullying our rights and liberties because it's against your religion, enough of calling us racist because we don't like your way of doing things. Why do you come to your country if it is only to try and change it into the image of the country you fled? We are offering you hospitality, which means it is up to you to conform to your traditions and customs. When a foreigner comes to live in your country, he has to respect your traditions, your customs and when he doesn't respect them it is even punishable by death in some of your countries!!! And we Europeans have to let you change everything without saying anything??? Go back to your own countries if our traditions and customs displease you so much! You get up our noses by wanting to change everything though you weren't capable of doing it in your own countries! Who are the real racists do you think? A racist is a person who doesn't like people of another nationality. Inverting the roles are you? Integrate or beat it! MILLIONS OF MEN DIED IN EUROPE TO ACQUIRE FREEDOM AND THAT'S CALLED DEMOCRACY ;-) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13c_1367225340 kauan Belgian Weatherman Sacked By Employer For Posting Antimuslim Rant Europe EU Belgium Islam Islamization Muslims Integration Immigration Immigrants Antimuslim Declarations Islamic Intolerance Muslim Dialectical Tricks Sun, 12 May 2013 05:45:02 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b95_1368351158 AntiPropagaanda Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism Amb. Curtin Winsor, Ph.D. The United States has largely eliminated the infrastructure and operational leadership of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network over the past five years. However, its ideological offspring continue to proliferate across the globe. American efforts to combat this contagion are hamstrung by the fact that its ideological and financial epicenter is Saudi Arabia, where an ostensibly pro-Western royal family governs through a centuries-old alliance with the fanatical Wahhabi Islamic sect. In addition to indoctrinating its own citizens with this extremist creed, the Saudi government has lavishly financed the propagation of Wahhabism throughout the world, sweeping away moderate interpretations of Islam even within the borders of the United States itself. The Bush administration has done little to halt this ideological onslaught beyond quietly (and unsuccessfully) urging the Saudi royal family to desist. This lack of resolve is rooted in American dependence on Saudi oil production, fears of instability in the kingdom, wishful thinking about democracy promotion as an antidote to religious extremism, and preoccupation with confronting Iran. Background Wahhabism is derived from the teachings of Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab, an eighteenth century religious zealot from the Arabian interior. Like most Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movements, the Wahhabis advocated the fusion of state power and religion through the reestablishment of the Caliphate, the form of government adopted by the Prophet Muhammad's successors during the age of Muslim expansion. What sets Wahhabism apart from other Sunni Islamist movements is its historical obsession with purging Sufis, Shiites, and other Muslims who do not conform to its twisted interpretation of Islamic scripture. In 1744, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab forged an historic alliance with the Al-Saud clan and sanctified its drive to vanquish its rivals. In return, the Al-Saud supported campaigns by Wahhabi zealots to cleanse the land of "unbelievers." In 1801, Saudi-Wahhabi warriors crossed into present day Iraq and sacked the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing over 4,000 people. After the Saudis conquered Mecca and Medina in the 1920s, they destroyed such "idolatrous" shrines as the Jannat al-Baqi cemetary, where four of the twelve Shiite imams were buried (on the grounds that grave markers are bida'a, or objectionable innovations). In return for endorsing the royal family's authority in political, security, and economic spheres after the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, Wahhabi clerics were granted control over state religious and educational institutions and allowed to enforce their rigid interpretation of sharia (Islamic law). Wahhabism was largely confined to the Arabian peninsula until the 1960s, when the Saudi monarchy gave refuge to radical members of the Muslim Brotherhood fleeing persecution in Nasser's Egypt. A cross-fertilization of sorts occurred between the atavistic but isolated Wahhabi creed of the Saudi religious establishment and the Salafi jihadist teachings of Sayyid Qutb, who denounced secular Arab rulers as unbelievers and legitimate targets of holy war ( jihad ). "It was the synthesis of the twain-Wahhabi social and cultural conservatism, and Qutbist political radicalism- that produced the militant variety of Wahhabist political Islam that eventually (produced) al-Qaeda." The terms Islamofascism and theofascism have been frequently misused by Westerners to refer to virtually all forms of radical Islamism, but they are fitting appellations for Wahhabism today. The sect's rejection of individual liberties, disparagement and reduction of women's rights and status, disregard for the intrinsic value of human life, and encouragement of violence against unbelievers, are unparalleled among Islamic fundamentalist movements. Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey has used the term "Sunni theocratic totalitarianism," a term that highlights both the movement's "will to power" over the most minute aspects of Muslim daily life and its global ambitions. He also notes that its adherents do not raise the banner of Islam in pursuit of specific national, political, or territorial gains. Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri has sharply rebuked the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood for participating in national elections. During the 1970s, Wahhabi clerics encouraged the spread of this revolutionary and atavistic ideological synthesis into Saudi universities and mosques, because it was seen as a barrier to the threat of cultural Westernization and spread of corruption that accompanied the 1970s oil boom. Consequently, the royal family and their religious establishment looked for a cause with which to deflect the growing zealotry from Wahhabist theofascism, a danger highlighted by the seizure of the Grand Mosque at Mecca by heavily armed Islamic Studies students in 1979. The diversion that the royal family seized upon was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Saudis financed a large-scale program of assistance to the Afghan mujahideen , in coordination with the Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency (ISI) and the CIA, while funding radicalized madrassas to disseminate neo-Wahhabi ideology and literature in the sprawling Afghan refugee camps of Pakistan. They also dispatched thousands of volunteer jihadis from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to fight alongside the mujahideen. These so-called "Arab Afghans" dispersed to far-flung areas of the world after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988. They pursued further victories against "unbelievers" in the name of Islam, and they were accompanied by militant Wahhabi preachers. These elements would form the backbone of al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was initially headquartered in Sudan, but returned to Afghanistan in 1996, following the seizure of Kabul by the Taliban. This was a new Afghan force, recruited in Wahhabi madrassas and, trained by the Pakistanis. Its goal was the establishment of a model Wahhabi state in Afghanistan. The Saudi royal family revoked bin Laden's Saudi citizenship (in response to heavy American pressure), but did little to interfere with Wahhabi "charities" in the Kingdom and abroad. These entities raised money for al-Qaeda, while the religious onslaught of Wahhabism continued to receive government sponsorship and funding. Osama bin Laden is widely believed to have reached an agreement with Prince Turki al-Faisal, then-chief of Saudi National Security and Intelligence in the mid 1990s, whereby al-Qaeda would not target the Kingdom, and the Kingdom would not interfere with al-Qaeda's fundraising or seek bin Laden's extradition. In fact, Al-Qaeda abstained completely from attacks on Saudi targets within the Kingdom prior to 9/11. Terrorist attacks and clashes between Saudi police and Islamist militants have erupted erupting periodically since May 2003, after the Saudi Government began cracking down on underground cells in the Kingdom (under pressure from Washington). However, it appears that most Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups still respect this quid pro quo Hundreds of members of the Saudi royal family jet around the world without fear of assassination. The country's vulnerable petroleum industry has only once been targeted by terrorists, and then in a less that serious manner. In return, and notwithstanding its limited cooperation with Washington in restricting terrorist financing, the Saudi monarchy has maintained its commitment to propagating Wahhabism at home and abroad, providing the terrorist underground with a growing flood of eager recruits. Wahhabi Indoctrination "Man . . . requires proper instruction and a fortunate nature, and then of all animals he becomes the most divine and most civilized; but if he be insufficiently or ill educated, he is the most savage of earthly creatures." Plato It is estimated that well over one-third of Saudi Arabia's public school curriculum is devoted to Wahhabi teachings. Passages from Saudi textbooks quoted in the American media after 9/11 generated much controversy. One textbook, for example, informed ninth grade students that Judgment Day will not come "until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them," while another stated that it is "compulsory" for Muslims "to consider the infidels their enemy." Embarrassed by the revelations, the Saudi government purported to launch a comprehensive review of its educational curricula and pledged that all such references would be removed. Last year, however, Freedom House published an exhaustive report on the new curriculum, concluding that it "continues to propagate an ideology of hate toward the 'unbeliever,' which include Christians, Jews, Shiites, Sufis, Sunni Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine, Hindus, atheists and others." Some analysts dismiss the relevance of this indoctrination on the grounds that "conforming to an ultra-conservative, anti-pluralistic faith does not necessarily make you a violent individual," but this reasoning is fallacious. If only one percent of the 5 million Saudi students exposed to these teachings resort to violence, this would produce 50,000 jihadis. Not surprisingly, bin Laden himself denounced foreign interference in Saudi school curricula in an April 2006 audiotape. Moreover, these teachings are reinforced by Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, who advocate jihad against enemies of "true" Islam - outside the kingdom." Incitement to violence against Shiites is particularly common. In December 2006, a high-ranking cleric close to the Saudi royal family, Abdul Rahman al-Barak, denounced Shiites as an "evil sect . . . more dangerous than Jews and Christians." In November of 2004, twenty-six clerics, most of whom held positions as lecturers of Islamic studies at various Saudi state-funded universities, issued a call for jihad against American forces in Iraq. Two Saudi officials denounced the fatwa in interviews with the Western media, but no retraction was made in Arabic to local media outlets. Months later, a Saudi dissident group released a videotape showing the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council, Saleh bin Muhammad al-Luhaidan, advising young Saudis at a government mosque on how to infiltrate Iraq and fight US troops, as well as assuring them that Saudi security forces would not punish them after their return. While Luhaidan publicly retracted his statements, videotapes of prominent Saudi clerics exhorting the public to wage jihad in Iraq and elsewhere continue to surface. Exporting Hatred While Saudi citizens remain the vanguard of Islamic theofascism around the world, the growth potential for this ideology lies outside the Kingdom. The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years as oil prices have skyrocketed. The bulk of this funding goes to the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrassas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports the training of imams; domination of mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of Wahhabi textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). By comparison, the Communist Party of the USSR and its Comintern spent just over $7 billion propagating its ideology worldwide between 1921 and 1991. Wahhabism has made less headway in the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, despite the fact that decades of Communist rule had weakened their traditional Islamic institutions. Several successor governments, especially the Uzbekis, have cracked down harshly on militant Islamist groups, while encouraging educational systems in the Hanafi tradition that promote tolerant and peaceful Islam. Africa is also a critical area of Wahhabi expansion, as it offers a multitude of "failed states" and communal cleavages ripe for exploitation, most notably in the Sudan and Nigeria. In all of these areas, the central dynamic is the same - it is the overwhelming wealth of Saudi Arabia that enables the Wahhabi sect to proselytize on a global scale, not the intrinsic appeal of its teachings. Throughout the world, moderates echo the assessment of Somali journalist Bashir Gothar, who writes that his country's tolerant Sufi-infused Islamic culture has been: "swept aside by a new brand of Islam that is being pushed down the throat of our people - Wahhabism. Anywhere one looks, one finds that alien, perverted version of Islam." Wahhabism in the West Wahhabi proselytizing is not limited to the Islamic world. The Saudis have financed the growth of thousands of Wahhabi mosques, madrassas, and other religious institutions in Western countries that have fast-growing Muslim minorities during the past three decades. Wahhabi penetration is deepest in the social welfare states of Western Europe, where chronically high unemployment has created large pools of able-bodied young Muslim men who have "become permanent wards of the state at the cost of their basic human dignity." This is a perfect storm of alienation and idleness, ripe for terrorist recruitment. The perpetrators of the 2005 London subway attacks were native-born Britons of Pakistani descent, recruited locally and trained in the use of explosives during visits to Pakistan. The Dutch Moroccan who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theodor Van Gogh in 2004 (for producing a film critical of Islam) was also a product of Wahhabi indoctrination. The Wahhabis have had less traction in the United States, which lacks the masses of unassimilated young people that exist in Europe. US welfare laws no longer allow able-bodied young men to have indefinite periods of government subsidized unemployment and immigrants (both Muslim and non-Muslim) tend to find a more stable niche in American society. Nevertheless, Wahhabi penetration of US mainstream Islamic institutions is substantial. A 2005 Freedom House Report examined over 200 books and other publications distributed in 15 prominent Saudi-funded American mosques. One such publication, bearing the imprint of the Saudi embassy and distributed by the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles, contained the following injunctions for Muslims living in America: Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law. hoever helps unbelievers against Muslims, regardless of what type of support he lends to them, he is an unbeliever himself. Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never befriend an infidel unless it is to convert him. Never imitate the infidel. Never work for an infidel. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel. Although Saudi-funded religious institutions have been careful not to incite or explicitly endorse violence since 9/11, they unapologetically promote distrust toward non-Muslims and self-segregation. In effect, they are trying to reproduce in America the kind of social conditions that have fueled radicalization and terrorist recruitment in Europe. While the Saudi ambassador in Washington said last year that his government was undertaking a "very intense review" of all missionary activities in the United States, it is clear that the Saudis are concerned primarily with avoiding bad publicity, not abandoning their drive to dominate Islamic institutions in America. Causes of American Inaction The Bush administration has been reluctant to put serious pressure on the Saudis to stop propagating Wahhabism, despite the enormous threat to American security posed by Sunni theofascism. There are several reasons for this. The first is American dependence on the kingdom's abundant oil reserves, which enable to the Saudis to maintain roughly 3 million b/d in spare production capacity. This spare capacity has been called the "energy equivalent of nuclear weapons," because it puts the Saudis in a unique position to compensate for disruptions in supplies from other producers and discourage price gouging - a service provided to the United States (and other industrialized nations) in exchange for protection. However, the argument that a firm public stance against Saudi propagation of religious hatred might lead the kingdom to retaliate economically is spurious. Saudi Arabia's use of the oil weapon would alienate the entire industrialized world, while threatening the relative economic prosperity that preserves stability in the kingdom. Some politicians and writers have voiced concern that pushing the Saudi royal family to curtail the Wahhabis could lead to terrorist attacks on the country's vulnerable petroleum infrastructure or lead to the collapse of the monarchy, which would produce an even worse outcome - a Saudi state controlled exclusively by religious fanatics. While these are serious risks, it must be borne in mind that most Wahhabi radicals view the monarchy (and its oil fields) as a golden goose. It is only by disguising Saudi Arabia as a 'friendly nation' that they have been able to go as far as they have in spreading their atavistic perversion of Islam. Such concerns reveal a tendency to imagine or spin the Saudi royal family as fundamentally pro-Western. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who served as ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005, has played an important role in masking Saudi - Wahhabi realities. His personal charm, Washington Post journalist David Ignatius writes, "many American leaders and even presidents to forget that he represented a secretive, repressive Muslim kingdom that survived because it had made a pact with 'puritanical' Wahhabi clerics who despised America." Bandar was also instrumental in the growth of what Daniel Pipes has called a "culture of corruption" that renders the executive branch of the American government "incapable of dealing with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the farsighted and disinterested manner that US foreign policy requires." Pipes points to a "revolving door syndrome" afflicting senior diplomats and policymakers who deal with the Saudis in their official capacities. Very often, they have enjoyed lucrative post-government careers working as consultants for Saudi businessmen and companies, or running Saudi-financed nongovernmental organizations. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office," Bandar once reportedly told a close associate: "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office." Unable or unwilling to combat the spread of Sunni theofascism at its main source (Saudi Arabia), the Bush administration launched a democracy promotion campaign intended to eradicate political conditions receptive to its global spread. However, rather than building stable and less oppressive systems resistant to religious extremism in Afghanistan and Iraq, the accumulating shortfalls of American intervention in both countries have made them magnets for jihadist recruitment. The Question of Iran The Bush Administration's reluctance to challenge the Saudis after 9/11 initially encountered impassioned objections from conservative and liberal commentators alike, but the outrage has tapered off as attention has became increasingly focused on Shiite Iran and its nuclear program which is hipped by Israel. In the view of the administration, the Iranian threat to American national security not only supercedes the threat of Sunni theofascism, but supercedes it to such a degree that a more accommodating policy toward Saudi Arabia is warranted. However, while the prospect of militant Shiite clerics in possession of nuclear weapons is understandably disconcerting to many Americans, the Iranian threat is mitigated by several important factors. For all of the shrill and unsettling words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his government's foreign policy is driven more by Iranian nationalism than Shiite Islamism (this is evident, for example, in Tehran's support for the predominantly Christian nation of Armenia in its dispute with Shiite Azerbaijan). This is not surprising, as Iran (known as Persia prior to the twentieth century) has existed in one form or another since biblical times, while it embraced Shiite Islam just 500 years ago. While Ahmadinejad exploits Iranian nationalism to win public support in his confrontation with the West, it can easily turn against him if he were to embark on a global adventure. Wahhabi clerics may support the Saudi royal family as a necessary evil in order to protect their global proselytizing mission, but they recognize no Saudi Arabian "nation" whose interests take precedence over their agenda. Such is not the case in Iran. Furthermore, Shiite Islamism does not exhibit theofascist tendencies. Radical clerics in Iran have been responsible for horrendous abuses of power, but they do not regard non-Shiite Muslims as "unbelievers" who must be systematically purged. Basically in Islam Christians and Jews are considered as belivers and in Quran are referred to as "the people of book". Even within the Shiite world, there is no prospect of a Wahhabi-style Iranian takeover of religious discourse because unlike the Sunnis, Shiite Islam is rigidly hierarchical. Iraqi and Lebanese Shiites gladly accept Iranian financial and military support, but they are fiercely loyal to their own clerical establishments. An even greater fallacy is the widespread belief in Washington that a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia is an asset in confronting Iran. On the contrary, coddling the Saudis makes it more difficult for the United States to deal with Iran. The Bush administration's refusal to hold Saudi leaders accountable for their incitement of Wahhabi jihadists (who have murdered far more Shiites than Americans, mostly in Iraq and Pakistan) is a source of deep resentment in the Shiite world. It is no surprise that the only two major public demonstrations against Al-Qaeda in the Islamic world after the 9/11 attacks were both organized by Shiites (in Tehran and Karachi, Pakistan). It is interesting to note that the recent escalation of US - Iranian tensions has made the Saudis less accommodating about Iraq than ever before. Reports that the Saudi Government is threatening to openly fund and arm Sunni insurgent groups if American forces withdraw from Iraq are a case in point. In effect, the Saudis are signaling to the Bush administration that they will thwart any American plan to cede control of Iraq to its Shiite-dominated, democratically-elected government, while signaling to the Sunni insurgents in Iraq that they can reject American efforts to broker a political settlement and not be left to face the consequences alone. Iran has no history of direct aggression against its neighbors, and unlike Saddam's Sunni-dominated Iraq, they have never used weapons of mass destruction during invasions of neighbors or against their own people. The strongest argument for this approach lies with the extent that Iran craves recognition of its actual status as the historically authentic nation state in the Middle East. Iran has long aspired to be and probably will be the region's predominant Islamic regional power. On the other hand Iranians are the most pro American and pro west people in the middle-east, although the recent Israeli pushed American forced sanctions are damaging this view. The Road Ahead Washington will eventually have to face the reality that derailing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (and, more broadly, its emergence as the predominant Islamic regional power) may be impossible over the long-term, and possible in the short term only at the expense of fatally undermining efforts to contain the spread of Sunni theofascism. The United States would do better to find a mutually acceptable means of working with this reality, rather sustaining a deadlocked confrontation by conditioning its willingness to normalize relations with Tehran on the abandonment of its nuclear aspirations. US - Iranian engagement will greatly enhance American leverage over the Saudis, as well as check the threat of Sunni theofascist terrorism in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. Saudi officials have urged the Bush administration not to talk with Iran because they know that a reduction in US - Iranian tensions will draw more attention to their unbridled export of Wahhabism. Reducing American dependence on Saudi oil must also be part of any comprehensive strategy for addressing the threat of Sunni theofascism. Although President Bush has expressed commitment to developing alternative energy sources, the surplus production capacity of the Saudis enables them to lower prices as necessary to ensure that this will not be cost effective for a long time. Barring radical breakthroughs in fuel technologies, an optimistic forecast would have bio fuels (ethanol, synthetic diesel and bio oil) making up to 30% of US petroleum equivalent needs by 2030. For the short to medium term future, only conservation can significantly alter American petroleum dependency. Without the billions of dollars in Saudi funds, the ideological, political, and psychological edifice of Wahhabi theofascism will begin to crumble, particularly if a concerted effort is made by the Bush administration to promote moderate Islamic institutions (a recent study by the RAND Corporation offers some insightful recommendations). Ultimately, the devil is not in the details - it is the administration's broad lack of resolve in confronting the threat of theofascism, not the lack of viable methods of combating it, that imperils American security. REFERENCES See Mohammed Ayoob, "Political Islam: Image and Reality," World Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, Fall 2004. Fascism is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." See Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 218. Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue, BBC, 15 March 2002. Wahhabi religious police (mutaween) prevented Saudi schoolgirls from fleeing a burning school because they were not properly veiled, leaving fifteen of them to die inside in 2002, an outrage equaled only by the Taliban's rein of terror against women in Afghanistan. R. James Woolsey, "The Elephant in The Middle East Living Room: Watching Wahhabis," The National Review, 14 December 2005. Zawahiri declared in a December 2006 videotape, "How could they not demand an Islamic constitution before entering these elections? Are they not an Islamic movement?" See: "Al Qaeda Warns U.S. on Fighting in Muslim Lands," The New York Times, 21 December 2006. Zawahiri accused it of being "duped, provoked and used" by the United States after it participated in the 2005 legislative elections. See "Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader praises U.S. hints of troop reduction in Iraq," The Associated Press, 6 January 2006. In his 2003 book, Why America Slept, Gerald Posner cites two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as saying that captured Al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah revealed details of a Saudi-Pakistani-Bin Laden triangle. See Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, (New York: Random House, 2003). "Inside the Kingdom," Time, 7 September 2003. Nina Shea, Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance, Freedom House, 2006. John Esposito, quoted in Gary Leupp, On Terrorism, Methodism, Saudi 'Wahhabism' and the Censored 9-11 Report, Counterpunch, 8 August 2003. Ali al-Ahmed of the Washington Institute for Gulf Affairs makes this point. See Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance, CBN.org, 14 June 2006. "Top Saudi cleric issues religious edict declaring Shiites to be infidels," Associated Press, 29 December 2006. More Evidence of Saudi Double Talk?, MSNBC, 26 April 2005. In an April 2006 lecture, Saudi cleric Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar cautioned his audience not to "get involved in things that are not jihad . . . divert the strife and calamity into the lands of the Muslims, instead of aiming them directly at the enemies." He continued, saying that: "there are places where jihad is proper - in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, and the Philippines." See Saudi Cleric Nasser bin Suleiman Al-'Omar: 'America is Now Disappearing From the Hearts Within America Itself . . . MEMRI Special Dispatch #1154, 4 May 2006. Alex Alexiev, "Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States", Testimony before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 26 June 2003. Author interview with Evgueni Novokov, Ph.D., former colonel, senior staff officer for the Soviet Politburo and deputy director for Middle East Operations, in charge of Arabic Department, and relationships with CPSU Central Committee front organizations and friendly parties; advised Central Committee members on Islamic affairs, 1986 -1988. 22 October 2006. Author interview with Abdel Guzman, Grand Imam of Jolo, Jolo City, Sulu Province, The Philippines, 5 March 2004. Author's interview with Abdel Guzman, The Grand Imam of Jolo, Op. Cit. See Freedom House, The Talibanization of Nigeria: Radical Islam, Extremist Sharia Law, and Religious Freedom, March 2002. "Against the Saudization of Somaliland," Addis Tribune (Ethiopia), 21 November 2003. http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/11/21-11-03/Against.htm In March 2002, the official Saudi magazine Ain al-Yaqeen estimated that the Saudi royal family in countries where Muslims were a minority has funded 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2,000 madrassas. The number of all Saudi Government and charitably funded institutions beyond Saudi Arabia is much higher. Cited in "Inside the Kingdom," Time, 7 September 2003. Alex Alexiev, "France at the Brink", The San Diego Union Tribune, 20 November 2005. See also: Alex Alexiev, Europe's Islamist Future is Now, The Center for Security Policy, 13 June 2005. Other publications examined include textbooks from the Saudi Ministry of Education and collections of religious edicts by state-sanctioned clerics in the kingdom. See Freedom House, Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques, January 2005. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, "Wahhabism in the Big House: The Teaching of Jihad in American Penitentiaries," The Weekly Standard, 26 September 2005. "Terrorist Recruitment in Prisons and The Recent Arrests Related to Guantanamo Bay Detainees," Testimony of John S. Pistole, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, 14 October 2003. Testimony of Dr. J. Michael Waller before the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, 14 October 2003. Frank Gaffney, A Troubling Influence, Front Page Magazine.com, 9 December 2003. Glenn Simpson, "Suspect Lessons: A Muslim School Used by Military Has Troubling Ties," The Wall Street Journal, 3 December 2003. "For Conservative Muslims, Goal of Isolation a Challenge; 9/11 Put Strict Adherents on the Defensive," The Washington Post, 5 September 2006. Edward L. Morse and James Richard, "The Battle for Energy Dominance," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002. David Ignatius, "The Operator," The Washington Post, 5 November 2006, p.7. Daniel Pipes, "The Scandal of U.S.-Saudi Relations," The National Interest, Winter 2002/2003. "Oil for Security Fueled Close Ties; But Major Differences Led to Tensions," The Washington Post, 11 February 2002. In November 2006, Nawaf Obaid, a close advisor to Prince Turki, warned in a Washington Post op-ed that a phased American withdrawal from Iraq will result in "massive Saudi intervention," with options including "funding, arms and logistical support" to Sunni insurgents. "As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene." See Nawaf Obaid, "Stepping Into Iraq: Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves," The Washington Post, 29 November 2006. Outlook on Renewable Energy in America, Volume II: Joint Summary Report, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), March 2007. The Rand Corporation, Building Moderate Muslim Networks, 2007. Curtin Winsor, Jr. is a former United States Ambassador to Costa Rica. He graduated from Brown University in 1961 with a degree in English literature, and then received a Masters in Latin American studies in 1964 and a Ph.D. in international studies in 1971 from the School of International Service at American University in Washington, D.C. He worked as an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole, as well as for the U.S. Foreign Service. * This article had previously been published in the Mideast Monitor. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b95_1368351158 AntiPropagaanda Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism &quot;A Must Read&quot; al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, Terrorism, America, Israel, Sat, 11 May 2013 09:20:13 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ee_1368278181 AntiPropagaanda Researchers establish link between racism and stupidityFindings taken from numerous research projects strongly indicate that prejudice, racism and intolerance are more likely to be present in individuals with greater cognitive rigidity, less cognitive flexibility and lower integrative complexity. Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Bussari Canada February 3, 2012 Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. Full Story: Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Source: Psychological Science http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ee_1368278181 AntiPropagaanda Researchers establish link between racism and stupidity Racism, Nazism, Zionism, Fri, 10 May 2013 06:13:46 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e4_1368179317 forbes1973 The inheritance of Abraham. A report on the 'promised land' May 2013 May Introduction Ten years ago the General Assembly received the report Theology of Land and Covenant, from the Board of World Mission, Church and Nation Committee and the Panel on Doctrine.1 This report concluded with encouragement for us to listen more to others, "enriched by new insights through continuing questions that need to be faced". Since 2003, two new insights have been noted by the General Assembly: in 2007, in the report What Hope for the Middle East?2 the Church of Scotland responded to a declaration from Church leaders in Jerusalem, and endorsed their criticism of Christian Zionism and encouraged members of the Church of Scotland to reject it, and in 2009 Christians in the Holy Land came together and produced Kairos Palestine: a moment of truth, offered as a word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian Suffering3 (information at http://www.kairospalestine.ps). With the co-operation and support of the World Mission Council, we present this report in 2013 as our latest reflection on the 'questions that need to be faced', as the political and humanitarian situation in the Holy Land continues to be a source of pain and concern for us all. The Bible and the land of Israel There has been a widespread assumption by many Christians as well as many Jewish people that the Bible supports an essentially Jewish state of Israel. This raises an increasing number of difficulties and current Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians have sharpened this questioning. This assumption of biblical support is based on views of promises about land in the Hebrew Bible.4 These views are disputed. The guidance in the Bible, notably the interpretation in the New Testament, provides more help in responding to questions about land and covenant. It also provides insight (discussed later in the report) into how Christians might understand the occupation of Palestinian land by the state of Israel, threats to Middle East peace and security, human rights, and racial intolerance, especially in the forms of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The phrase "the land of Israel" has a range of understandings amongst the three world faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The city of Jerusalem, which is a holy place for all three religions, is the most contentious religious and political issue. In general terms there have been three main ways of understanding the promises about land in the Bible: 1. A territorial guarantee 2. A land held in trust 3. A land with a universal mission. 1. A territorial guarantee This idea presents scripture as making unconditional, literal promises referring to a specific, identifiable territorial area for the Israelites. Such texts as the following have been cited to support this view: 1 The 2003 report Theology of Land and Covenant is available at http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/13230/Theology_of_Land_and_Covenant.pdf 2 The 2007 report What Hope for the Middle East is available at: http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3776/middle_east_07.pdf 3 Information about Kairos Palestine is at http://www.kairospalestine.ps 4 The Hebrew Bible corresponds with the Christian Old Testament. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e4_1368179317 forbes1973 Church of Scotland upsets Jews (Who doesn't?) with report which questioned the divine right of Jews to the land of Israel. Jewish, Church of Scotland, Israel, Criticism of Israel is not Antisemitism. Thu, 09 May 2013 07:05:19 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4c5_1368097073 LostRothschild According to the left, only their, "approved" education curriculum is acceptable. Anything additional is "evil", "scary" and "sick". Talk about intolerance. How about "It's none of your business"? Link to Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/default/article/Focus-as-NRA-meeting-wraps-up-Child-safety-4490229.php ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Review: Against Abstinence-Only Gun Education Yesterday, the front page of the Houston Chronicle boasted a photograph of a five-year-old boy who attended the National Rifle Association's annual convention with his family. In the photograph, the boy, Tate, is holding a plastic gun, "using a video-game at an exhibit booth." "Focus for day: Child safety," declared the Chronicle's headline. The su "Families taking practical advice and positive memories home." Tate's mother, Rebecca, is both practical and positive: She wishes to make "sure know the proper way to be around and not to be afraid." The New York Daily News remains censorious. Lambasting the event's "Youth Day," which featured an air-gun range at which children could compete to win multicolored marksmanship ribbons, the paper printed a series of pictures of children holding firearms. The captions read "SCARY SIGHT," "FRIGHTENING," and "SICK!" Advertisement Subtle the Daily News is not. Bill Hutchinson, author of the piece, complained that "some of the attendees were the age of the Newtown massacre victims, others too young to know the difference between a toy gun and a real one." This is astonishingly dishonest. How, pray, are children supposed to "know the difference between a toy gun and a real one" if they aren't shown that difference? And what better way could there be of showing them that difference than to offer them instruction from a professional, as the NRA did, or - even better - having conscientious parents who are open about it? Love them or hate them, guns do exist - there are 360 million of them in the United States. Are we to pretend that this is not true? The Left is fond of pointing to unpleasant Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics that show, inter alia, that the number of children under the age of 13 who die from firearms in the United States is 25 times that of the combined under-13 casualties of the next 25 industrialized nations. This is a terrible, terrible thing. But progressive thinking as to how America might deal with that terrible thing is typically confused. Denouncing the NRA's "Eddie the Eagle" program, which encourages K-6 children to "Stop. Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult" if they see a gun, Nancy Hwa from the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence told ABC News: The Eddie Eagle program tends to glamorize guns by making them seem like something you can only do when you're an adult - just like drinking and smoking. You know what happens when you tell a child something like that. They want to do it more than ever. If this is true, then what accounts for the widespread horror among Hwa's fellow travelers at pictures of children holding guns? What explains the recent advertising campaign from advocacy group "Moms Demand Action," which aims to shock by showing schoolchildren holding firearms? If Eddie the Eagle's making guns "seem like something you can only do when you're an adult" is so roundly destructive, then what's the quarrel with those who would make it clear that it's something you can do - safely - when you're a child? My suspicion is that if one were to apply the New York Daily News's principle to, say, sex education, those who are ostensibly so vexed would come down firmly on the side of open discussion. Take the U.S. Concealed Carry Association's view of the matter: When it comes to kids and guns, you have two choices: Ignorance or education. But here's the reality - if you take the ignorance approach, your kids will get their firearms "education" from movies, video games, or, from their friends. Sound familiar? "Abstinence only" is widely mocked on the Left on precisely these grounds; why should abstinence-only gun education be excluded from the derision? Surely it couldn't be because Eddie the Eagle is an employee of the hated NRA . . . ? One man, quoted in the Daily News's story, offered a downright silly view: "They shouldn't be teaching kids how to use guns. What happens when they get older? They might become like that Connecticut killer," said Cal Castille, 24, of Houston, referring to Newtown gunman Adam Lanza. They might, I suppose. But there's no evidence whatsoever that they will. Discussing gun safety with one's children was once the norm, and not just in that lost Ruritanian past to which the president likes to imagine conservatives are desperate to return. As late as the 1980s, gun clubs remained ubiquitous across America, having been installed as standard into high-school basements in the first half of the 20th century. And, as George Mason's Walter E. Williams has documented, prior to the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, "private transfers of guns to juveniles were unrestricted. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father." Critics of more muscular defenses of the right to bear arms like to assure the public that they have no problem with hunting and do not wish to undermine longstanding American traditions. What they are after, they say, is "commonsense" and "sane" regulation. With this putative affection for "common sense" in mind, one might ask them: "At what age should a child first be taken hunting?" What is a "commonsense" time to tell your child about guns? At 18, perhaps? Or maybe at 21, to accompany one's first drink? The truth of the matter? For the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms there is no correct age. Bill Hutchinson and his ilk consider guns to be a negative thing per se. They don't want you becoming familiar with weapons in the same way that, regardless of your age, they don't want you becoming familiar with 50,000 volts of electricity. Weapons, in their view, are inherently destructive. They may pay lip service to hunters and to tradition, but this is no more than a smart tactical ploy. "The photos from the event speak for themselves," Politic365's Lauren Victoria Burke wrote this weekend. The photos from the event "speak for themselves" for me, too. In them, I see supervised kids being taught marksmanship and gun safety by professionals and by their parents; I see children being freed from fear and prepared for life in the real world; most important of all, I see America's children being instructed by one of the country's foremost "little platoons" - and in an education system dominated by centralized orthodoxy and stolid progressivism, I can think of little that is more exhilarating. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347656/against-abstinence-only-gun-education http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4c5_1368097073 LostRothschild Against Abstinence-Only Gun Education 2, 2nd, second, amendment, gun, firearm, rights, constitution, tyranny, freedom, nra, convention, child, safety Tue, 07 May 2013 07:04:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf1_1367924479 Baron_Kaz LAHORE: In majority Muslim Pakistan, religious minorities say democracy is killing them. Intolerance has been on the rise for the past five years under Pakistan's democratically elected government because of the growing violence of Islamic radicals, who are then courted by political parties, say many in the country's communities of Shiite Muslims, Christians, Hindus and other minorities. On Saturday, the country will elect a new parliament, marking the first time one elected government is replaced by another in the history of Pakistan, which over its 66-year existence has repeatedly seen military rule. But minorities are not celebrating. Some of the fiercest Islamic extremists are candidates in the vote, and minorities say even the mainstream political parties pander to radicals to get votes, often campaigning side-by-side with well-known militants. More than a dozen representatives of Pakistan's minorities interviewed by The Associated Press expressed fears the vote will only hand more influence to extremists. Since the 2008 elections, under the outgoing government led by the left-leaning Pakistan People's Party, sectarian attacks have been relentless and minorities have found themselves increasingly targeted by radical Islamic militants. Minorities have little faith the new election will change that. "We are always opposed to martial law (but) during all the military regimes, the law and order was better and there was good security for minorities," said Amar Lal, a lawyer and human rights activist for Pakistan's Hindu community. About 96 percent of Pakistan's population of 180 million is Muslim. Most are Sunni, but according to the CIA Factbook about 10 to 15 percent are members of the Shiite sect. The remaining 4 percent are adherents to other religions such as Christians, Hindus and Ahmedis - a sect reviled by mainstream Muslims as heretics because they believe a prophet came after Muhammad, defying a basic tenet of Islam that Muhammad was the last prophet. Sunni radicals view Shiite Muslims as apostates. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom in a report last month berated the Pakistani government for its poor record of protecting both its minorities and its majority Sunni Muslims and recommended that Pakistan be put on a list of worst offenders, which could jeopardize billions of dollars in US assistance. "The government of Pakistan continues to engage in and tolerate systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief," the report said. "Sectarian and religiously motivated violence is chronic, especially against Shiite Muslims, and the government has failed to protect members of religious minority communities, as well as the majority faith." Lal said that in the past three years, 11,000 Hindus living in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan province have migrated to India because they were worried about security and frustrated by kidnappings and forced conversions of young Hindu girls to Islam. Pakistan's Hindu minority complains that scores of Hindu girls have been kidnapped, forced to marry their abductor and convert to Islam. "In Pakistan's southern Sindh province, from every Hindu house, one member of the family has left either for Karachi or for a foreign land," said Lal, who was once a special adviser to Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan People's Party until her assassination in December 2007. "We have lost our hope from the democratic forces because they do everything for money" and nothing for minorities, he said. Pakistan's Christian communities have complaints as well. In March, a mob of young Muslims stormed and set fire to nearly 150 homes and shops in the Joseph Christian Colony, a Christian enclave on the outskirts of Lahore, the capital of Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province, where 60 percent of Pakistanis live and where militant Islamic groups have their headquarters. The mob gathered after one resident was accused of blasphemy, but local people say it was a tiff over money. Most residents fled for their lives, returning the next morning and eventually rebuilding their homes. On April 30, some radicals attacked 25-year-old resident Babar Ilyas. His injured arm and leg wrapped in bandages, Ilyas told the AP that he was beaten by radicals who warned Christians to leave the area and drop charges against at least two people arrested in connection with the earlier attack. "We do not have any hope in elections," said Salim Gabriel, a self-declared social worker for Christians and colony resident. "Dictatorship is better for minorities." Gabriel accused political parties of aligning with radical Islamic groups to get votes, campaigning with well-known militants which he says emboldens radicals among Pakistan's Sunni majority to carry out attacks against minorities with impunity. Minority religious groups fear extremists will piggyback on the backs of mainstream political parties to a position of political power. They most often point to Nawaz Sharif, the head of the Pakistan Muslim League. In an interview with the AP, Sharif's spokesman Siddiq-ul-Farooqi flatly rejected any links to extremist groups. "We are a moderate party and have no relationship with extremists," Farooqi said. Members of the party, however, have been seen on the campaign trail with members of extremist parties like the Ahle Sunat Wal Jamaat, a new name for the outlawed Sunni militant group Sipah-e-Sahabah Pakistan, or SSP. Minority leaders and election monitoring groups say Sharif's party is withdrawing candidates in certain electoral constituencies to give radical religious candidates an unchallenged run for election. Farooqi denied any accommodation with extremist groups. But Pakistani politics is rarely straightforward. Sharif's party has fielded several Shiite candidates, even as it rubbed shoulders with militant Islamists who publicly call Shiites apostates deserving of death. Most of the deadly attacks targeting Shiites in Pakistan have been carried out by a group affiliated with the SSP. Yet the renamed SSP is fighting elections as part of a coalition of six radical religious parties. Maulana Ahmed Ludhianvi, the leader of the SSP and a candidate, said the coalition has 300 candidates running for election. His party placards often hurl abuses at Shiites, calling them kafirs, or non-believers. The non-believer epitaph is also widely used in reference to Ahmedis, who consider themselves Muslims but have been explicitly declared non-Muslims in Pakistan's constitution. As well as violent attacks on its members, Ahmedi leaders told the AP they have been singled out with a separate electoral roll that identifies them as Ahmedis. The separate list also gives their addresses, making them easy targets. Security was tightened after a brutal attack in 2010 when militants simultaneously hit two Ahmedi mosques in Lahore killing more than 100 people and wounding scores more. Ahmedis rarely vote in elections because to do so they have to declare they are non-Muslims, says Shahid Ataullah, a spokesman for the Ahmedi community in Lahore. So virulent is the abhorrence of Ahmedis by Pakistan's religious right-wing parties that many candidates in Saturday's elections have found it necessary to openly declare their view that Ahmedis are non-Muslims. The country's controversial blasphemy laws are often used to jail Ahmedis for crimes as simple as saying Assalam-o-Allaikum, a traditional greeting among Muslims and often used by non-Muslims living in predominately Muslim countries. It means "May the peace of God be upon you." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf1_1367924479 Baron_Kaz Pakistan : minorities say democracy is killing them! Pakistan