US, Israel & Brazil: The Unbearable Political Levity



This week we are going to address some examples of political levity (here referred to as incongruence) that should make any human being, who thinks, wonder about the kind of people we have running our lives.

Incongruence #1
In the name of business, of trade, politicians are willing to sacrifice their country's collective identity. 
Arab nations reckon they have a strong collective identity (based on the Islamic religion); and for that reason they demand from non-Muslim women the use of veils, chadors, niqabs etc whenever they visit their country – those who decide to go there, subject themselves to that disrespect (for their own identity) and comply to that demand. But it's interesting to see that Arabs are not willing to reciprocate the gesture when they come to our side of the world and, because they invest heavily in our economies, Arabs believe that they have the right to impose their customs on us. What kind of problems does this lack of reciprocity create? It creates cultural clashes, unnecessary tensions and (ultimately) violence. 
I was shocked when I read that recently an Iraqi citizen, who after much strife joined his family in the US, was shot by an American citizen in the street. An organisation with links to Hamas, CAIR, is trying to connect this murder to hate crime – yet the media didn't pick up the story, why? First, because CAIR is the voice of a Terrorist Organisation; second, because this attack may have been the result of political negligence: if a political leader avoids stating the obvious, if he refuses to call things by its proper name, if he offers the impression that he favours a certain group over the other; then he can expect tensions to rise and violence to occur, since the people are completely able to connect the dots by themselves and, when perceiving that their leader is taking the wrong course of action, they may decide to take matters into their own hands (Selah). 

Incongruence #2
America and Israel continue to feed the “occupation” lie – this makes no sense, specifically when the international law clearly refutes such claim; so why keep repeating the same lie incessantly? Whose interests does the perversion of truth serve? 
Prof. Eliav Shochteman, a renown expert in International Law, supported in public what many of us have been saying for years: Israel is not an Occupying Power

“After the People of Israel had been in exile for so many years, its right was recognized to return to its Land. The practical translation of this recognition of the right of the Jewish People to its land was expressed in the text of the British Mandate for the Land of Israel, within which framework, Britain was named to be the executor of the plan to establish a national home for the People of Israel (...) In addition to this, in order to assure that the government of Britain would indeed carry out this plan, a specific clause was defined in the text of the Mandate in which it was stated that the government of Britain was forbidden from transferring any of the territory of the Land of Israel to a foreign sovereignty -- Prof Shochteman 

Yet Britain did it by illegally transferring 80% of the territory covered by the mandate to the Arabs, in order to create yet another Arab nation: Jordan. The United States and the European Union want to do the same now and illegally transfer Samaria and Judea to a ex nihilo UN/Sweden/Latin America recognised Arab state: Palestine. Those countries want to violate the very same international law they invoke to justify their violation of the law - this is an incongruence. 
But the bigger incongruence comes from Israel itself: why does the Rosh Hamemshalat Medinat Yisrael allow this injustice; what is he waiting for to restore the truth? 

Incongruence #3
Brazil, following the example of other Latin America countries, added a paragraph to the Homicide Law (Art 121 of the Penal Code), giving thus birth to “femicide”: the murder of a woman, by a man, because of her gender and crimes committed against pregnant women, girls under 14, and women over 60. 
In Latin American countries, women are treated terribly, albeit violating the principle of equality (i.e. all citizens are equal under the law regardless of religion, race, gender, age etc) is not an excuse, nor the proper means, to tackle violence against women. 
The word homicide implies both genders (and even everything in between), so why this discriminatory term “femicide”? In Brazil's case, to distract the electorate (and women are its biggest slice) from journey towards the abyss that President Dilma pushed her country into. 
The argument “the critics have a point but they need to understand that many women die everyday of domestic violence” is flawed because it doesn't address the inability to enforce the existing law; and it is invalid for it doesn't present valid arguments to justify the violation of the sacrosanct principle of equality [a capital principle stated by Article 1 of the Human Rights Charter “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”]
The law of “femicide” suggests that a woman, due to her gender, has more rights than a man (i.e.  they are not equal under the law); it prejudges that intent to kill based on gender is easily proved; it assumes that despise for and discrimination against the feminine gender is easily proved (anyone who has profiled abusers, knows that the abuser is often a psychopath who displays a charming and trustworthy behaviour, acts carefully not to be caught and thus manipulates the spouse into silence); and this law naively supposes that those who display an anti-women behaviour will automatically change their deportment due to the existence of this new paragraph. 
The incongruent term “femicide” is not only demagogic but also illegal – but again, to make a mockery of the law is the trend nowadays. So what's next in the agenda...gaycide, blackcide, Muslimcide

“On the surface, an intelligible lie; underneath, the unintelligible truth.” -- Milan Kundera
(in The Unbearable Lightness of Being)

Comments

  1. Number 1- they play with our laws, cause they know we can't discriminate them based on religion so if their collective identity is based on religion and not territoriality, like us, then it becomes difficult to demand from them the respect for our culture and identity. It's my two cents on it but I can be wrong.
    Number 2- excellent point! We are used to see the world being against us but why is Israel letting this happen? I want to know too. If the law is on our side then let's end this bullshit.
    Number 3- femi...what? WTF?
    The world is a messed up place. Nothing makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Michael :D!

      #1 that's right. And that is the debate that I want to raise: if they know our laws and there's nothing we can do about it, what should be done? Should we just allow clashes to occur?
      For instance, Uruguay refuses to accept more Syrian refugees invoking "cultural and infrastructural shortcomings" - why can't we do the same to avoid problems for both sides?

      #2 agreed.

      #3 lol I know, right? Only the left to come up with such silly concepts. But I'm wondering how many on the right supported this demagoguery.

      Mike, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  2. Won't comment on Brazil cause that's just another feminazi creation and I had it with them. Those women think everything they do is justified just cause they are poor little women, the professional victims.
    I foresee the west suffering a major blow with all these Muslims, I'm tellin' you. Did you hear about the brawl in the synagogue in London? That's just the fucking beginning.
    Now, Israel: Bibi stop this lie now! More and more voices are coming out saying the truth and the Israel government is ignoring them, on what authority? Under what mandate? We Jews want the situation clarified: Israel owes that much to us all. Thanks Max for bringing that up. That Mcshit hole from the white house must be feeling like the true asshole he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Adam :D!

      Oh no, not you too...feminazi? What is this, a male thing? I agree with you on the "professional victims" part.
      I did read about that particular event: it was nasty.
      What do you mean by "Israel owes that much to us all"?

      Adam, thanks for your comment, man. You were missed :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  3. I am increasingly coming to the view that all intelligent people should go back to reading Huntington's Clash of Civilisations. This book is now more relevant than when it was written and in retrospect one cannot help but admire the man for his predictions coming true now. I am surprised at some of the latest developments in the USA and Brazil but I think that this phase will pass. There are other pressing problems (Iran) that need this kind of behaviour now and one just needs to be patient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      Indeed. I finally got the book: will start reading it this week. Anyway, if anyone is interested in reading it, it is available online:
      https://www.academia.edu/4610592/Samuel_P_Huntington_The_Clash_of_Civilizations_and_the_Remaking_of_World_Order_1996

      In Brazil, it can only pass if the next government scraps that idiotic paragraph from the law (but we all know that they do that traditionally).
      Ah, Iran...and Saudi Arabia too (a report says that the Saudis are buying dangerous material from Pakistan).

      Rummy, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  4. Regarding #1, the murder of Ahmed al-Jumaili would have been all over the news if the killer had been white. A note on a suspect is here:

    http://us.newscodex.com/suspect-arrested-in-murder-of-iraqi-refugee-watching-snow-c657ddc4fd614c8b8464dade8f5ed7d9

    It is the flip side of the "Hands up, don't shoot!" mentality. There was a similar killing in my city of Fremont in 2006 when an immigrant from Afghanistan - a mother of 6 - was murdered in a random gang initiation challenge. She was walking with her 3 year old daughter at the time. But don't try to propose anything better, because the Intellectualoids will condemn you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Max, total silence, what are you up to now? :-) I agree that in the face of recent events we should all stop and listen. And prepare.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After the government is formed, Israel should take care of this problem. Israel cannot continue to allow the world to lie and press to give up her land to strangers! Brazil's new law is silly and it opens dangerous precedents, Max.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers