It is no surprise that John Racy, a psychiatrist with much experience in Arab societies, has noted that homosexuality is “extremely common” in many parts of the Arab world. [1] Indeed, even though homosexuality is officially despised in this culture and strictly prohibited and punishable by imprisonment, incarceration and/or death, having sex with boys or effeminate men is actually a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The key is this: the male who does the penetrating is not considered to be homosexual or emasculated any more than if he were to have sex with his wife, while the male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not considered to be emasculated since he is not yet considered to be a man. A man who has sex with boys is simply doing what many men (especially unmarried ones) do. [2] And this reality is connected to the fact that, as scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic-Arab societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male’s achievement of pleasure through violent domination. [3]

Link Here.

In the morning. Tolerating as a stated political policy is arguably one of the dumbest decision ever made by a political party EVER.

Some University of Maryland cashier refused to ring up a student wearing a pro Israel shirt.

The student was able to get another cashier to complete the transaction, but the episode led to a big flap over the rights of customers and cashiers. A spokesperson for the Food Collective says, “no one should have to have contact with people whose views they find hurtful.”

In America you have a constitutional right to not have your feelings hurt. Just as the 9th circuit court of appeals, oh and Darwin would have it.

Link here:

A Qatar sheikh held up a British Airways flight at Milan’s Linate airport for nearly three hours after discovering three of his female relatives had been seated next to men they did not know.

The value of one person, in this case the sheikh, were superseded by the cultural values of the other travelers. Values of different cultures will inevitably lead to conflict which must be resolved. The aggregation of resolving these conflict will very clearly begin to show preference for one culture’s values over another one’s.

An article about Europe struggling with Islamic reluctance to integrate writes:

Jonathan Friedman, an American living in Sweden, mentions that the so-called Integration Act of 1997 proclaimed that “Sweden is a Multicultural society.” The Act implicitly states that Sweden doesn’t have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there. Native Swedes have been reduced to just another ethnic group in Sweden, with no more claim to the country than the Somalis who arrived there last Thursday. As Friedman puts it: “In Sweden, it’s almost as if the state has sided with the immigrants against the Swedish working class.”

The implicit argument in multiculturalism is that no one culture is superior to any other culture. This is argument is patently false. Cultures that places liberalism before any other set of values is categorically superior to any other kind of culture man has produced. This is true for the simple reason that this kind of culture is the most accommodating of its peoples traditions. By inculcating it’s citizens into a cultural ideology that everyone has a set of basic rights guaranteeing individual liberty those in that culture may exercise that liberty by participating in the customs and traditions of the culture of their choosing. The only customs and traditions they may not exercise are those that come in direct conflict with the fundamental cultural values of liberalism. This prohibition allows for the maximization of personal expression and in turn what allows a liberal culture to be more accomodating towards many different traditions.

Culture’s that embrace liberalism will always be superior to a culture that denies individual liberty. Those that celebrate multiculturalism over liberalism will very quickly learn just how superior liberal culture is once they live in a culture were the tyrant forbids them from participating in their traditions.

To be frank, given the success of countries that embrace a liberal culture I simply can not see how their can be any question of their superiority.