Jacob's Soap Box

22 November, 2008.

ll tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

(Thomas Jefferson)

Finally! I was glad to see that notwithstanding of all impotent naval so-called powers, the Indian Navy has blown a Somali pirate mother-ship out of the water, literally that is. Good on you India, go after the bastards!

Gulf Of Aden

The area in the Indian Ocean between near the entrance to the Red Sea (also know as the Gulf of Aden) and the Somali and the Kenyan coasts are notorious in their sea pirates activities going back to the 1980’s, this is not a new phenomena.

We, in the shipping industry are well aware of it, so are the marine insurance companies who require that shipowners, pay additional insurance premium know as extra war insurance cover, for vessels passing through that area and other areas piracy infested areas to cover additional underwriting risks.

Whilst in early days the attacks were only on small and slow ship and were concentrated around the Island of Socotra, as no action has been taken over the years, the audacity of the Pirate increased to a point that they are now endanger the global oil supply as we have just seen with the hijacking of the 318,000 deadweight tonnes (DWT, about 2.3 million barrels) Saudi owned tanker Sirius Star about 450 nautical miles (520 statue miles) from the coast of East Africa.

Sirius Star

At US$55.00 per barrel, the Sirius Star cargo is valued at about $130 millions add to it the value of the ship at $120 million, that gives the pirates a “catch” of a quarter of a billion dollars, not bad for a day’s work

Apart from the historical event (can I say it?) of being the largest vessel ever hijacked, the Sirius Star hijacking represent a new level as she was hijacked in a position that until now was considered safe from piracy attacks. The vessel if far too large to transit the Suez Canal (or the Panama for that matter) thus must go around Africa. She was hijacked on the shipping route used by the thousands of oil tankers sailing from the Persian Gulf into the Atlantic Ocean around Africa.

The Sirius Star was enroute to the USA.

* * * * *

Have you ever wondered how a small bunch of Somali lowlives are able to disrupt world shipping whilst the great navies of the world are seemingly powerless? The answer is two words: Human rights! No, this is not some kind of a joke.

You see, according to the various UN treaties on Human Rights, should any other signatory country’ ship, capture and arrest the pirates, once they are onboard a ship, they are in fact in on a territory of the flag of the ship, thus they can immediately claim asylum seekers status.

Consequently the Navy commanders who are there to protect shipping are under strict instructions not to capture the pirates or if they captured to let them go immediately, but NOT turn them to the authorities.

The ground on which asylum can be sought is that should the pirate be returned to Somalia, according to the Sharia Law the applicable law in that country, they, the pirates, may face the death penalty for piracy or at least getting their hands chopped off for stealing. It sure looks like the inmate running the asylum.

Did I say Sharia Law? Yes I did, and yes the pirates are Muslims but oh no! We should mention it because it may offend some people!

The emotional “compassionate” liberals claim Islamophobia. They are quick to point out that it is all to do with the fact that Somalia is a dysfunction country, that the pirates being Muslims is only incidental because all Somalis are Muslims and thus their crimes have got nothing to do with Islam.

Oh really? Let us see; There are ten major areas around the world that are notorious piracy activities, those are:

• The Straits of Malacca; between the Island of Sumatra (Indonesia) and the coast of Southern Thailand, West Malaysia and Singapore.
• Bay of Bengal; off the coast of Bangladesh.
• South China Sea; off the Island of Borneo (shared by Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei) and the northern Philippines island.
• Philippines; Off the (Muslim) Island of Sulawesi.
• Sunda Straits; between the Indonesian Islands of Java and Sumatra.
• East Africa; off the coast of Mozambique.
• Gulf Of Guinea; off the coast of Nigeria.
• South America; off all counties, and
• Gulf of Aden; Between Yemen and Somalia.

( The Straits Of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf, was also in the list until the navies of the USA, Britain and Australia started to patrol it to avoid smuggling of arms into Iraq)

Further, according to Associated press, one of the fighting splinter groups claimed to have been going after the pirate that hijacked a Muslim ship. Strictly speaking, by my own past dealing with her owners, the ship is not own in Saudi Arabia but the point is that it is thought to be thus according to the LA Times of 21 November:

MOGADISHU, Somalia — A radical Islamic group in Somalia said Friday it will fight the pirates holding a Saudi supertanker loaded with $100 million worth of crude oil.

Abdelghafar Musa, a fighter with al-Shabab who claims to speak on behalf of all Islamic fighters in the Horn of Africa nation, said ships belonging to Muslim countries should not be seized.

“We are really sorry to hear that the Saudi ship has been held in Somalia. We will fight them (the pirates),” Musa told AP Television News

Who do you think finance this “radical Islamic group”? Chances are the same people who finance other “Islamic groups”, any suggestion? Could it be that some of the ransom money find its way to such group as protection money?

Do they think that we are all morons to believe that there is no relations between the “Islamic groups” in Somalia and the pirates or that being Muslim is not a factor in sea piracy.

* * * * *

No concept has ever been abused more then the notion of Human Rights and more so by, for and on behalf of people who preach total submission under a religion by that name, Islam. Islam, submission in Arabic, is not a religion as we know it in Christianity or Judaism, slam is a religion, a way of life, a law and a political movement, all in the name of Allah and his prophet Muhammad.

Unlike Judeo-Christianity whereby the general rule that is that anything which is not specifically prohibited is permitted, in Islam anything which is not specifically permitted is prima facie prohibited, except perhaps riding Rolls-Royce when it comes to replacing camels.

This is why we see Falafel stands and music shops burned in Baghdad or their owners executed under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

Nothing demonstrates the abuse of human rights in Islam as the status of women. Under Islam, women have a few rights, must mostly obligations. For example, a woman is not permitted to leave her houses without permission from the man of the house (typically husband, father, or brother), she must be obedient to her husband at all times, she must be “ready and willing to have sex any time here husband wishes (except when she menstruates) and a husband has the right to beat his wife.

Woman must submit to her husband

A child may be married and such marriage may be consummated, when a non-Muslim does it is both child abuse and paedophilia but when a Muslim does it, it is diversity of culture. So what is so bad if a woman must obey her father in arranging her marriage or the fact that in (Islamic) court woman evidence valued half that of a man.

And there is the question of honour. The whole honour of her family lays between any young Muslim girl’s leg, failing to maintain, what Muslim call honour may and will cause the young women her life, she will be beaten, stoned or otherwise murdered by her father and/or her brothers. Mind you, being raped is not a valid excuse to “loss” of honour.

Can you imagine the outcry if our respective parliaments would make a law that prohibits women from leaving their houses without permission of their husband or, if unmarried, their father or brother. Yet such law exists right under our noses but our governments afraid of dealing with it, for a fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic .

In the very first paragraph of their book Fleeced, co-authors Dick Morris and Eileen McGann say:

FACT: The mainstream media in America is distorting the news to deliberately downplay terrorism. The Society of Professional Journalist has actually recommended that reporters “avoid using word combinations such as ‘Islamic terrorist’ or ‘Muslim extremist’.”

In her book Londonistan Melanie Phillips writes:

… on the day that four Islamist suicide bombers blew themselves and more than fifty London commuters to bits, the [Metropolitan] deputy commissioner [of Police], Brian Paddick, stood before the television cameras and made the noteworthy comment: “As far as I am concerned, Islam and terrorist are two words that do not go together”*

[* The quote is attributed to Ian Herbert of ‘The Independent’ of 8 July, 2005]

Astonishing, to say the least. Now, would you trust the media and the multicultural infested authorities to tell that sea piracy is a Muslim problem too when they have such evidence? Not a chance!

* * * * *

If you think that Muslims that enjoy human and other rights, far and beyond anything they had imagined possible in their original countries, are grateful for the hospitality their new home countries extend to them, you are wrong! Not only they are ungrateful and in some cases hostile, many consider any gesture of goodwill as a weakness on the part of their host countries. I experienced that attitude in person I am sorry to say.

Too “racist” for you liking? Listen to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali asylum seeker in Holland at the time ⁽¹⁾, has to say about her countrymen and women, asylum seekers, in her book Infidel she says:

We had always been sure that we, as Muslims and Somalis, were superior to the unbelievers …

[the Somali Muslims’] reaction was to crate a fantasy that they as Somalis knew better about everything then the inferior white people.” you don’t need to teach me how to use a thermometer, our Somali thermometers are much more advance” – that kind of attitude. His breath smells of pig. He’s only a bus driver. How dare he think he can tell me how to behave”

Sure there are decent people who were born into Islam and go about their day like most of us, but how many of them actually condemn those who carry abuse of human rights, let alone atrocities?

So you see, whilst the Political Correct brigade is in complete denial of the evil of Islam “superior” Muslim Somali pirates putting innocent seamen life at risk, much like be FBI before 9/11 and the British police before 7/7, who displayed more concerned for potential terrorist Miranda Rights then their own citizens’ lives.

How difficult is it to proclaim a law by which convicted sea pirates cannot apply for asylum? Then send the navy down and blow the Pirates out of the water.

______

⁽¹⁾ Ayaan Hirsi Ali went on to become a member of the Dutch Parliament, she renounced Islam became a vocal critic of Islam, particularly the treatment of women. She came into international fame with the murder of the Dutch film maker Theo Van Gough who was murdered by a Muslim.

11 August, 2008

In ten years time, perhaps a bit earlier, perhaps a bit later, historians will ponder over a phenomena that became a global orthodoxy in the 1990’s known as “Global Warming” or in its more “correct” term “Climate Change”. What was it that made so many people believe in such a lie?

The world has known doomsday prophecy going back to biblical times, but nothing ever got close to the current global warming phenomena that invades every aspect of our life in a futile attempt to stop some imaginary calamity with as much probability as somehow stopping mother Earth rotating around the sun, or even slowing her down.

What are the underlining dynamics that lead to vast acceptance of the largest fraud ever perpetrated on human kind? A question that may well be a subject of a PhD thesis in History, Psychology, Political Science if those disciplines would ever develop the moral courage to say “we were wrong”.

It seems that there are elements in our times that wish to take us back to the eighteenth century, back to the squabble between the enlightenment movement and the orthodoxy.

By Orthodoxy I mean all forms of conformity without challenge including, but not limited to, religion and politics. The enlightenment movement refers the eighteen and nineteen centuries philosophical approach using observation, reason and/or proof. It sometimes referred to the period from Newton to Jefferson.

Earlier enlightenment brought philosophy and science together, Spinoza, Pascal and Leibniz did not distinguished between philosophy and mathematics. In fact mathematic theories are based on “logical assumptions” known as axioms (or postulates) that cannot be proven, for example if A=B and B=C then A=C (in fact the axiom is about all relations not only equality).

Orthodoxy is not necessarily negative as enlightenment is not inevitably positive, although enlightenment brought us Voltaire, Rousseau and Jefferson, it also brought us Karl Marx and subsequently Stalin. The Enlightenment era also brought us Liberalism a political term which means different things in different countries.

In America a liberal is often used as synonym to socialist whilst in Australia the Liberal party is the conservative side pf politics, for this reason I prefer the use of Leftist or socialist to describe the non conservative part of politics.

New Orthodoxy

In recent times we are called to forget all about reason and proof and to accept dogmas put before us as truths. I refer particularly to issues that are shoved down our throats without reason or proof. We suppose to accept theories such as anthropogenic (human caused) global warming and damage to the ozone layer, other alleged human induced damage to the environment from shopping plastic bags, plastic bottles, fertilisers etc etc etc.

The different between Neo-Orthodoxy and the traditional one is that the very same philosophies that opposed the (traditional) orthodoxy in favour of reason and proof are those who stifle discussion about reason and proof by using the very same tactics of the old orthodoxy; calling names and excommunication. Back in the nineteen century the church label you as sinner or a deviant and bar you from community activities by a decree, or by hanging, burning, stoning or beheading you depending on your religion.

In case of global warming the neo-orthodox will have you believe that the science is settled, that there is a scientific consensus and that their modelling represents a scientific proof that global warming is a result of human activities. (I have already dealt with those lies in past blogs).

However, if you are a scientist and wish to validate, let alone disprove the global warming hypothesis, you will quickly be labelled denier or skeptic, accuse of being funded by the oil companies, be effectively excommunicated from the scientific community and research funding. Some of the proponent of global warming have gone even further calling for silencing any dissention to global warming by legislation. Middle ages stuff.

Far fetched? Not at all. If you present radio or TV In Australia you will be taken of the air with a large fine for your station if you broadcast or allow the broadcast of any information questioning the harm from smoking (active or passive) or broadcast any information on possible beneficial qualities of smoking, e.g. that smoking seems to be beneficial in combating Parkinson Disease. The Global warming Nazis are pushing for a similar laws for their issue.

The neo-orthodoxy is not limited to global warming. Multiculturalism is often confused with multi-racism, extols the diversity of cultures within one community for the sake of diversity and opposes assimilation of cultures. Again you are asked to accept multiculturalism as if it was part of the Tables of the Covenant, no discussions, just (neo) orthodoxy.

You are not permitted to question multiculturalism without being labelled “racist”

Again there are anti-vilification laws in the (people’s republic of the) State of Victoria in Australia that will ensure your imprisonment if you are convicted of vilification against Islam but you mat vilify Christianity or Judaism all you like. You will still be convicted of vilifying Islam even if you quote the Koran’s inconvenient (to Muslims) bits, in other words, the truth is not a defence (!?).

I define the multicultural equation as:

To criticise the majority is a human right but to criticise a minority is vilification (or racism).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Somali born, a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a young girl, who escaped from an arrange marriage by seeking and receiving refugee status in the Netherlands. She became a member of the Dutch Parliament and come into the forefront of the news when her partner in production of anti Islam movie, Theo Van Gough, was murdered in mid daylight Amsterdam Street by a Muslim. Her name was found on a note pinned to Van Gough’s body by a knife. She now lives in The USA.

According to her web site:

She has since [the murder of van Gough] become an active critic of Islam, an advocate for women’s rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. Her willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith have made her a target for violence and threat of death by Islamic extremists.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has 24/7 protection from Muslims that declared her a target, one would expect that she know something about being frighten by Muslims, yet there are still neo-orthodox in the media who are convinced that they know better. Watch one such attempt by one Avi Lewis who must be the greatest dickhead (oops) in Western media:

On The Map with Avi Lewis: Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Islamophobia

Here you have it, super arrogant neo-orthodox moron, who incidentally now works for Al-Jazeera. Yes, there are people in position of influence that despite all evidence to the contrary protray Islam is just another religion (of peace).

The Science Of Marxism

No inverted commas! No, this is neither a joke nor a sarcasm. This is what true Marxists believe even as we speak. Marxism is a science no different from mathematics physics and astronomy hmmmmm hahahha (sorry I could not stop myself)

According to The History Guide dot org:

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history”

And if you think that this is a oncer here another one; someone named David North gave a series of speeches to the Social Equity Party (SEP), an American Marxist organisation, in August 2005 and among other thing he said:

But whether Marxism is a science depends, to a great extent, upon 1) whether the laws which it claims to have discovered reveal the real objective mechanisms of socio-economic development; 2) whether the discovery of those laws can adequately explain the preceding historical evolution of mankind; and 3) whether the understanding of these laws makes possible significant predictions about the future development of human society.

[Emphasis & highlight provided]

(In fact if you Google the term “Marxism as science” you will get some 2.7 million hits an indication that at least some people take the possibility seriously.)

We are all aware of the Marxist explanation of preceding evolutions and their ability for “significant predictions” in what they called Five years plans that were published at the expiration of the five years “proving” the soviet “success”. Well comrade, please tell me how come that the science of Marxism did not “significantly predicted” the fall of the Soviet Union?

It is no accident that the so-called science of global warming has been taken up by the Marxism “scientists” albeit they often deny their past.

The Anti-Smoking Neo-Orthodoxy

Try to debate the global warming deception and before long you will be reminded of the anti-smoking campaign as a parallel. By some twisted logic if you accept the “science” that smoking is harmful, you must accept the global warming “science”.

In fact the only larger deception ever perpetrated on mankind, is that of the anti-smoking lobby. Before you jump at me I will say this; smoking is addictive and smoking may be harmful to smokers in certain circumstances – how harmful and what circumstances we don’t know or are not told.

The allege health damage from passive smoking is a fraud!!! But more about it later (By the way, I don’t smoke).

We have legal limit for alcohol consumption, we are even told that consumption of red wine, within reason, is beneficial to our health. We have many safe intake limits on intake of all sorts of chemicals (we call medicines), including arsenic, but we have no such limits on cigarettes.

Why? Because cigarettes and smokers have been demonised by the neo-orthodoxy. Hey, they have never established, to my knowledge, what is the harmful substance in cigarettes, is it nicotine, is the tar or perhaps the (cigarettes’) paper.

Fact: Most of conclusions on the harm of cigarettes comes from statistical observations – NOT CLINICAL ONES!

(You do remember that I sleep on the floor because 95% of people die in bed, don’t you?)

In recent TV ads it transpired that a featured terrible looking woman with what was described as mouth cancer from smoking is in fact a (non smoking) actress and her mouth cancer was pure makeup! I would have thought that if indeed smoking causes moth cancer they would have found a real candidate with no trouble.

The is true for some terrible looking muck that comes out an artery of a smoker, EXCEPT that the photo on packets of cigarettes is of an artery of a non smoking …. Pig!

But to the neo orthodox you are denier and anti social if you dare questioning their “science”.

Next time when someone comments on your smoking and its harm ask him/her what proof do they have (“everybody knows that” is not a proof).

Amazing, the very people who regard themselves as enlightened behave exactly as the middle ages Church did.

Have a fag.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008 (except attributable quotations)