Hand in the Cookie Jar, ...Admit to NOTHING ever...Ever, EVER..just Keep your LIPS Moving...

 

Can we establish "collectively" the top ten Political CANARDS...

Can we establish "collectively" the top ten CANARDS...

 

I'll start with my #1 "Racism"....  

 

 

#Insurrection-Jan6th 

 

 

#GreenEnergy Scam  

 

 

#TransGenderISM #Isolationism” 

 

 

#SystemicRacism 

 

 

 #Democracy our form of Government...(suckers BET) 

 

 

 #VoterID  

 

 

#WhiteSupremacy Thxs @Endsley

 

  

 #1619Project

 

Give me some others...

Islam's TAQIYYA, > Mafia's OMERTA > Chicago's Alinsky > GhettoCRATS...Liberalism's ART of Deception

 

As an organic learner I find a lot of my intuitive understanding being tied down with those in the know.... 

                                            Mafia Island

 Will Lingo "Islam who taught the mafia".......When Roger of Sicily defeated it's Islamic (and Jewish) rulers, he forcibly converted them to Catholicism. Many secretly continued their old ways. |The word "MAFIA" is Arabic, it means "our place in the shade" (our secret place) The Italian mobs have always been Islamic in origin.

 

 Liberal DECEPTION

Shuck and Jive has been the tactic of the GhettoCrats for over 50 years....

Being taken for a ride by those who DRIVE "for" them.

Grew up watching spoiled white kids gravitate to "tough" blacks
The Genesis of Shuck and Jive....

The Chicago Way who learned from Alinsky, who learned from the Mafia who learned from Islam

see their word for DECEIT -Islam: Taqiyya

The End JUSTIFIES the Means

From their the Italian MAFIA picked up on it....

Omerta-code of silence

from there...

Alinsky picked up on it from his alliance with the Mafia and transferred it to "community organizers

Finally, we will consider what accounts for these many similarities between Islam and the mafia, including from an historical perspective.

1.  Allah and Muhammad/Godfather and Underboss
The padrino of larger mafia organizations and families—literally, the “godfather” or “boss of bosses”—has absolute control over his subordinates and is often greatly feared by them for his ruthlessness.  He has an “underboss,” a right-hand man who issues his orders and enforces his will.  The godfather himself is often inaccessible; mafia members need to go through the underboss or other high ranking associates.
Compare this with the relationship between Allah and his “messenger” Muhammad (in Arabic, Muhammad is most commonly referred to as al-rasul, “the messenger”). Unlike the Judeo-Christian God—a personal God, a Father, that according to Christ is to be communed with directly (Matt 6:9)—Islam’s god, Allah, is unreachable, unknowable, untouchable.  Like the godfather, he is inaccessible.   His orders are revealed by his messenger, Muhammad.
If the Judeo-Christian God calls on the faithful to “come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), Allah says “Do not ask questions about things that, if made known to you, would only pain you” (Koran 5:101).  Just follow orders.

2.  A “Piece of the Action”
The godfather and his underboss always get a “piece of the action”—a “cut”—of all spoils acquired by their subordinates.
So do Allah and his messenger, Muhammad.  Koran 8:41 informs Muslims that “one-fifth of all war-booty you acquire goes to Allah and the messenger” (followed by Muhammad’s family and finally the needy).

3.  Assassinations
The godfather, through his underboss, regularly sends mafia men to make “hits”—to assassinate—those deemed enemies of the family.
So did Allah and his messenger.  One example:  A non-Muslim poet, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, insulted Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to assassinate Ka‘b he be allowed to lie to the poet.
Allah’s messenger agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that the poet took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka‘b’s guard was down, slaughtered the poet, bringing his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

4.  Circumstance is Everything
While the mafia adheres to a general code of conduct, the godfather issues more fluid orders according to circumstances.
This is reminiscent of the entire “revelation” of the Koran, where later verses/commands contradict earlier verses/commands, depending on circumstances (known in Islamic jurisprudence as al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh, or the doctrine of abrogation).
Thus, whereas Allah supposedly told the prophet that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256), once the messenger grew strong enough, Allah issued new revelations calling for all-out war/jihad till Islam became supreme (Koran 8:39, 9:5, 9:29, etc.).
While other religions and scriptures may have contradictions, only Islam rationalizes them through abrogation—that is, by giving prominence to later verses which are seen as the “latest” decision of the deity.

5.  Clan Loyalty
Loyalty is fundamental in the mafia.  Following elaborate rituals of blood oaths, mafia members are expected to maintain absolute loyalty to the family, on pain of death.
Similarly, mafia members are expected always to be available for the family—“even if your wife is about to give birth,” as one of the mafia’s “ten commandments” puts it—and to defend the godfather and his honor, even if it costs their lives.
Compare this to the widespread violence and upheavals that occur whenever Allah or his prophet is offended—whenever non-Muslim “infidels” blaspheme them.  Or, as Bill Maher put it: “Its’ the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”
Islam’s “Loyalty and Enmity” doctrine (al-wala’ wa’l bara’)—which calls on Muslims to be loyal to one another even if they dislike each other—is especially illustrative.  Koran 9:71 declares that “The believing [Muslim] men and believing [Muslim] women are allies of one another” (see also 8:72-75).  And according to Muhammad, “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him….  All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor”—precisely those three things that mafia members respect among each other.   This is why Muslims like U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan, whose “worst nightmare” was to be deployed to fight fellow Muslims, often lash out.)

6.  Death to Traitors
Once a fledging mafia member takes the oath of loyalty to the mafia—including the Omertà code of silence and secrecy—trying to leave the “family” is seen as a betrayal and punishable by death.   Any family member, great or small, is given authority to kill the traitor, the “turncoat.”
Compare this to Islam.  To be born to a Muslim father immediately makes the newborn a Muslim—there are no oaths to be taken, much less any choice in the matter.   And, according to Islamic law, if born Muslims at any point in their lives choose to leave Islam, they are deemed “apostates”—traitors—and punished including by death.   Any zealous Muslim, not just the authorities, is justified in killing the apostate (hence why Muslim families that kill apostate children are rarely if ever prosecuted).
In the words of Muhammad—the messenger (“underboss”) of Allah (“godfather”):  “Whoever leaves his Islamic faith, kill him.”

7.  Distrust and Dislike of “Outsiders”
Aside from loyalty to the family, mafia members are also expected not to befriend or freely associate with “outsiders”—who by nature are not to be trusted, as they are not of the “family”—unless such a “friendship” helps advance the family’s position.
Similarly, the second half of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity—the enmity (al-bara’)—calls on Muslims to maintain distance from and bear enmity for all non-Muslims, or “infidels.”
Thus Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them.” According to the mainstream Islamic exegesis of al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” that is, a defector, an apostate, an enemy.
Similar scriptures include Koran 4:89, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.” Koran 60:1 declares, “O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy [non-believers] for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth [i.e., while they deny Islam]?” And Koran 4:144 declares “O you who believe! Do not take the infidels as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah [“godfather”] a clear case against yourselves?”

8.  Deception and Dissimulation
As mentioned, close relations to non-mafia individuals that prove advantageous to the family (for example, collaboration with a “crooked cop”) are permissible—as long as the mafia keeps a safe distance, keeps the outsider at arm’s length.
Compare this to Koran 3:28 which commands “believers not to take infidels for friends and allies instead of believers… unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” According to the standard Koran commentary of Tabari, “taking precautions” means:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [but know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

After interpreting Koran 3:28 as meaning that Muslims may “protect” themselves “through outward show” when under non-Muslim authority, Ibn Kathir, perhaps Islam’s most celebrated exegete, quotes Islam’s prophet (“underboss”) saying: “Truly, we smile to the faces of some people, while our hearts curse them.”
Similarly, a few years ago, Sheikh Muhammad Hassan—a leading Salafi cleric in Egypt—asserted on live television that, while Muslims should never smile to the faces of non-Muslims, they should smile, however insincerely, if so doing helps empower Islam, especially in the context of da‘wa.
The idea of hating “outsiders” is apparently so ingrained in Islam that another leading Salafi cleric, Dr. Yasser al-Burhami, insists that, while Muslim men may marry Christian and Jewish women, they must hate them in their heart—and show them that they hate them in the hopes that they convert to the “family” of Islam.
(For more on the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity,” including references to the exegetical sources quoted above, see al-Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman Zawahiri’s comprehensive treatise by that name in The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 63-115.)
9.  “An Offer You Can’t Refuse”
Although the novel-turned-movie, The Godfather, is fictitious, it also captures much of the mafia’s modus operandi.  Consider, for example, that most famous of lines—“I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse”—spoken by the Godfather to one of his “godsons,” an aspiring actor and singer.  After being turned down by a studio director for a role that he desperately wanted, the godson turned to his Godfather for aid.
As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that the offer that can’t be refused consists of nothing less than violence and death threats: after the Godfather’s messenger to the director asking that the actor be given the role is again rejected, the director awakens the next morning to find the bloodied and decapitated head of his favorite stallion in bed with him.  The godson subsequently gets the movie role.
Throughout the context of the entire Godfather trilogy (which captures well the mafia’s approach to business) making someone “an offer they can’t refuse” means “do as I say or suffer the consequences,” possibly death.
Compare this to Islam’s threefold choice.  On Muhammad’s orders, whenever Muslims conquer a territory in the name of Islam, its non-Muslim inhabitants are given three choices: 1) convert to Islam (“join the family”), 2) keep your religious identity but pay tribute (jizya, see below) and live as an “outsider,” a subjugated dhimmi or 3) execution.
Throughout history, converting to Islam has been an “offer” that countless non-Muslims could not refuse.  In fact, this “offer” is responsible for transforming much of the Middle East and North Africa, which were Christian-majority in the 7^th century when the jihad burst forth from Arabia, into the “Muslim world.”
And this offer is still alive and well today.  For example, several older and disabled Christians who were not able to join the exodus out of Islamic State controlled territories opted to convert to Islam rather than die.
Like the mafia, then, Islam’s offer to conquered non-Muslims (“outsiders”) is basically “join our ‘family,’ help us and we will help you; refuse and we hurt you.”
10.  The “Protection” Racket
Once the mafia takes over a territory, one of the primary ways it profits is by collecting “protection money” from its inhabitants.  While the protection racket has several aspects, one in particular is akin to an Islamic practice: coercing people in the mafia’s territory to pay money for “protection,” ostensibly against outside elements; in fact, the protection bought is from the mafia itself—that is, extortion money, or pizzo.   Potential “clients” who refuse to pay for the mafia’s “protection” often have their property vandalized and are routinely threatened and harassed.
Compare the collection of pizzo with the Islamic concept of jizya:  The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”
In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad—in our analogy, the “underboss”—regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya from non-Muslims:  “If they refuse to accept Islam,” said the prophet, “demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”
The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something.  According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”
Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money.  As one medieval jurist succinctly puts it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya” (Crucified Again, p. 22).
And to top it off, just as the mafia rationalizes its collection of “protection money” by portraying it as money that buys mafia protection against “outsiders”—when, as mentioned, the money/tribute serves only to protect the client from the mafia itself—so too do Islam’s apologists portray the collection of jizya as money meant to buy Muslim protection from outsiders, when in fact the money/jizya buys protection from Muslims themselves.
Conclusion: Mafia—What’s In a Word?
What accounts for all these similarities between Islam and the mafia?  One clue is found in the fact that the very word “mafia,” which means “hostility to the law, boldness,” is derived from an Arabic word, mahya, which in translation means “bragging, boasting, bravado, and swaggering.”
This etymology is a reminder that Sicily, birthplace of the mafia, was under Arab/Islamic domination for over 200 years.  Aside from a borrowed etymology, could some of the mafia’s modus operandi also have been borrowed from Islam?  Isolated on their island, could native Sicilians have co-opted the techniques of social controls that they had lived under and learned from their former overlords—albeit without their Islamic veneer?
The mafia is not the only historical example of a non-Muslim criminal organization to be influenced by Islam. For example, the Thuggees — whence we get the word “thug” — were a brotherhood of allied bandits and assassins who waylaid and savagely murdered travelers in India, often by first feigning friendship. Although they were later associated with the Hindu cult of Kali, the original Thuggees were all Muslim. As late as the 19^th century, a large number of Thuggees captured and convicted by the British were Muslim.
The similarities are clear: Along with assassinating his opponents, including, as seen, through treachery, Muhammad also personally engaged in banditry, ransacking the caravans of enemy tribes.
And if the words “mafia” and “thug” have Arabic/Islamic etymologies,  the words “assassinate” and “assassin” are derived from a Medieval Islamic sect: the Hashashin, who pioneered the use of political assassination—with promises of a hedonistic paradise for the assassin who almost certainly died—in the name of Islam.
At any rate, when HBO personality Bill Maher recently proclaimed that Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book,” he was barely touching on the similarities between the mafia and other criminal organizations, and Islam.

From their THE ghettoCrats picked up the false narrative of 

 

WHITE GUILT to manipulate further..

 

WOKE vs MAGA Contrast / Compare

 

                    Suggestion to the #TrumpTeam 

              Start making the following comparisons.  

 

MAGA patriots have a higher percentage of Employment 

 

MAGA patriots w/ higher percentage of Two Parent household

 

MAGA patriots collect less #FREEstuff from the government 

 

MAGA patriots have fewer criminal records 

 

MAGA patriots have fewer children in prison 

 

MAGA patriots have more respect for others 

 

MAGA patriots have served in the military 

 

MAGA patriots have taken out few college loans defaulted in fewer 

 

MAGA patriots have a high "Happy Quotient 

 

MAGA patriots a higher degree of fidelity to the Constitution 

 

MAGA patriots are SMARTER than others.... 

 

MAGA patriots pay more taxes than others 

 

MAGA patriots have a higher percentage of Employment 

 

MAGA patriots collect less #FREEstuff from the government 

 

MAGA patriots have fewer criminal records 

 

MAGA patriots give MORE TO CHARITY 

 

MAGA patriots have a higher percentage of makers to takers

Hegelian Dialectic...making like STALIN and HITLER are different....Suckers Bet!

 

Hegelian Dialectic...making like "the left" and "the right" are different.

You have Stalin on the LEFT
you have Hitler on the RIGHT....
Here we are speaking to what now the left is doing. Experimenting on human beings...children and adult men and woman....

So do understand...the fight...not against the right or the left..it is a battle against ALL THINGs Evil.

• 
  

Nazi medicine and research on human being

The War Crimes trial in Nuremberg, Germany, in October of 194

The atrocities of Nazi medicine, as well as the conditions that made them possible, are even today a topic of heated debates among historians and bioethicists. Proponents of various positions often refer to the Nazi period in discussion of the ethics of research on human subjects. The Nuremberg Medical Trial of 1946–47 and the ensuing Nuremberg Code addressed in particular the absence of consent of those involved in research in Nazi experiments, and as a consequence formulated the principle of informed consent for the first time on an international level. In addition to this crucial issue, the preconditions and inherent rationale of Nazi biomedical science have been at the centre of debates. Recent historical research documents both similarities and differences between Nazi medicine and medicine in the other countries in the developed world. It also suggests implications relevant for today's debates on the ethics of research involving human beings.

Two features of the Nazi period are crucial for understanding the specific forms of research on human beings undertaken then: the totalitarian political system and the broader paradigm of racial hygiene, which was not solely the result of the Nazi political system, but rather a social movement that drew on concepts created by understandings of contemporary biology. Its origins precede the beginnings of the Nazi party by more than two decades. But the autocratic political system and the programme of racial hygiene reinforced each other and contributed to specific questions to be addressed by the medical sciences, and to a setting in which no ethical or legal regulations existed. This combination of factors created the conditions for research to be undertaken that would not otherwise have been possible.

Rassenhygiene (a German equivalent for eugenics) was perceived as an applied science founded on the laws of genetics, and as essential for improving the health of the Volk, or race. It was thought to provide long-term preventive measures against defects in the human genetic material, complementing individual hygiene. Central to racial hygiene was biological determinism: the view that humans live and behave as they do by virtue of their biological constitution, and, ultimately, their genes.

During the 1920s, many racial hygienists were sympathetic to the Nazi movement when it gathered strength, although similar eugenic aims were pursued by scientists, physicians, lawyers, and politicians across the political spectrum, and in the international scientific community. After the Nazi takeover in 1933, medical scientists, particularly geneticists, expected improved conditions in various research endeavours. Many in the discipline, such as Fritz Lenz and Ernst Rüdin, hoped to see the practical application of the results of their scientific work, thereby contributing to rebuilding society according to the laws of biology. They also hoped to gain access to further resources to extend their research programmes. State and party institutions, in turn, were seeking scientific legitimation for their health and racial policies, such as the newly implemented sterilisation law “for the prevention of genetically diseased offspring”. The law allowed the forced sterilisation of those who supposedly had genetically determined disorders. Along with the later Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, which purported the “racial inferiority” of Jews, considerable minorities of the population were defined as being “biologically” of minor value, with the implication that they lost most or all of their civil rights, and were easily available as “research material”.

In the realm of science policy, resources were diverted mainly towards research aimed at improving the health and performance of the Volk. As a result, questions about heredity and fitness for occupational or military service became central to most research programmes. There is no indication that scientists were forced to do such research, or to do it in the specific way outlined below. The cases that follow are selected examples only.

Resources for genetic research had increased considerably since the mid-1920s, with a further boost from 1933 onwards. As a result, more and more scientists framed their research projects in terms of genetics, and claimed that their work could contribute to establishing criteria that differentiated inherited diseases from acquired diseases. The experiments carried out by Josef Mengele in the Auschwitz concentration camp were among the most radical demonstrations of genetic-research interests in these contexts. His investigations addressed questions such as the genetics of specific proteins protecting against infections, or the heredity of eye colour. Mengele correlated experimental data gained from examination of living people (especially twins), with pathoanatomical and biochemical analyses done after they had been killed. Tissue samples were sent to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics, and Eugenics in Berlin. Its director, Otmar von Verschuer, received funding for some of these activities from the prestigious Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Verschuer was an internationally recognised scientist, who, after World War II, was appointed professor of human genetics at the University of Münster. These details confirm that parts of Mengele's research questions and methods conformed to the scientific logic of its time. However, in a context of unlimited access to unconsenting people who were defined as “biologically inferior”, the research programme was accompanied by complete disregard for the victims, and many cruelties ensued.

Within the German army and the Nazi SS organisation, there were controversies over whether adding antibiotics or homoeopathic drugs to traditional surgery would improve wounded soldiers' chances of survival. By contrast, within the Allied armies, this question had already been settled in favour of antibiotic therapy. SS physicians organised trials of antibiotic and homoeopathic treatments in the concentration camps at Dachau and Ravensbrück. Healthy prisoners were given injections from the festering tissues of other inmates who had wound infections. In some people, small pieces of wood and glass were placed in open wounds, in order to mimic war injuries more realistically. The victims were then treated with homoeopathic preparations or various applications of sulfonamides; some received no therapy at all. About a third of the victims died. All these experiments followed a scientific logic that was outdated at the time, and which took no account whatever of the wellbeing of those involved in research. The surviving victims had irreversible physical damage and severe psychological trauma.

Experiments in the context of aviation medicine were aimed at finding methods to help pilots survive after their planes had been hit at very high altitudes, or after an emergency landing at sea. The experiments, carried out in the Dachau concentration camp, focused on physiological questions, such as the effects on the human body of low pressure at high altitude, or of drinking salt water. The researchers responsible, such as Siegfried Ruff, Sigmund Rascher, and Georg Weltz, were all associated with university institutes or the German Air Force. For the high-altitude experiments, about 200 people were chosen from the camp prisoners, at least 70 of whom died during the experiments in a specially designed low-pressure cabin, or were killed afterwards to study the pathological changes in their brains. Judged strictly on scientific terms, the methods and results of some of these experiments were apparently innovative and useful. The US Air Force continued some of this research after the war and published the results in cooperation with a number of German physicians involved in the original experiments.

By contrast to historical narratives postulating the irrationality of Nazi science, it must be noted that medical research programmes in this political context pursued questions that were in some cases outdated, but which in other cases were in line with the prevailing standards of the international scientific community. The methods and techniques used also represented a broad range, from the conventional, even obsolete, to the innovative. In most cases, the practical implementation of these methods and techniques was brutal and showed total disregard for the suffering of the individuals concerned.

 

The existing evidence illustrates an inherent logic of these research endeavours: the urge to establish new knowledge superseded any respect for the people who suffered in these experiments. Faced with the challenge of a given medical question, researchers sought opportunities to carry out the experiments required to solve it. It was in concentration camps, asylums, and hospitals in the occupied territories that they found these opportunities because existing legal regulations and sanctions did not apply there.

In the context of the post-war Nuremberg Medical Trial, some of the protagonists of these medical atrocities formulated ethical arguments to justify their activities. The high value of gaining new scientific knowledge and the importance ascribed to the health and wellbeing of society as a whole, or the Volkskörper, were the central arguments placed above any regard for the suffering person.

The historical experience strongly suggests the necessity of setting clear limits on research involving human beings. These limits should be defined with full respect for the participant's integrity and interests, and in accordance with the best available medical knowledge. The impetus to produce new knowledge, and the interests of society, or of potential future patients, are legitimate considerations, but these must not take priority over the research subject's free will and wellbeing. Finally, such regulations should be linked to forceful sanctions in case of violation. The debates surrounding the formulation, and the later revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki amply document the difficulties in implementing such regulations. Their practical application remains a constant challenge.