WHERE DO MUSLIMS BECOME RADICALISED?
... need a clue?
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
Okay, um, they are white Mid-Eastern type buildings that are now referred to as “Centres of Worship” when applying for council approvals and they are where Muslims rush out of in a rage each Friday after prayers wanting to kill non-Muslims. And they have tall minarets symbolic of dominance. Yaaay, you got it... mosques!
Now, who runs these mosques? Need another clue? Okay, let me think... they are sinister looking bearded bastards who travel the country on welfare preaching anti Aussie stuff. Yaaay, that’s it... Muslim clerics!
Okay last one. What do these clerics, imams and mullahs, actually preach? Another clue? ...um, it’s something to do with a stone-age philosophy of violent hatred where those who don’t submit must lose certain parts of their bodies depending on the severity of the crime and where little girls can be married to old men but they must be genitally mutilated beforehand. Yaaay, that’s it! Shariah Law!
Our clever leaders explain that home-grown Muslims who travel to fight with the ISIS are likely to return dangerously radicalised.
Wrong! They were already well and truly radicalised before they packed their bags. They travelled to join the ISIS to be TRAINED (not radicalised) in the best ways to kill infidels!
Our leaders want us to treat these white buildings with the same reverence we treat churches. Yet most churches I have seen don’t advocate the abolition of all other religions and most parishioners don’t rush out after services on Sunday mornings wanting to kill non-Christians. So maybe the clergy isn't preaching the same stuff as the clerics.
At most anti-mosque rallies I have attended, objections are based on the proximity of the mosque to Aussie homes, noisy monotone wailing known as “calls to prayer” and parking problems etc. And those objections may well convince a council to refuse an application.
The problem with that process is another application for a mosque will suddenly appear at a more acceptable site and the same objections to council will re-emerge, until eventually the council will have no choice but to accept a proposal because the objectors have used up all their objections.
But it’s not really about parking and stuff is it?
It’s about an alien cancerous culture with vile objectives establishing itself within our communities.
Mosques are symbols of non-assimilation and dominance over non-Muslim communities. They are centres used to promote discord, hatred and the eventual destruction of their hosts, and anyone else who disagrees with them.
They disparagingly refer to us as "non-Muslims" yet I don't hear Presbyterians referring to us as "non-Presbyterians". Do you get the drift of where they are coming from?
They are about as culturally un-Australian as you can get... and that, not parking, should be the real and consistent objection to the proliferation of mosques.
But watch out for 18C, despite the fact objections to mosques have nothing to do with the Racial Discrimination Act.
Objections to council should be presented as matters of justifiable community concerns. Monuments of hatred have no place in our suburbs, they are diametrically opposed and alien to the Australian way of life!
Forget 18C, council is obligated to take those considerations into account in the same way it would an application for a halal slaughterhouse in Martin Place.
Parking spaces and noise pollution are just pretend objections.