Islamophobic crime up by 70% in London

you could argue it is,

European researchers have proven that the instigators of the grand multicultural enterprise are fighting against Nature. The New York Times reported on a Dutch study that scientifically determined ethnocentrism, the preference for one’s own “in-group,” is natural, chemical, and biological.

The hormone oxytocin has been called “the cuddle hormone,” because the hypothalamus releases it during sexual intercourse, breastfeeding, and childbirth, among other times. This neuropeptide is known to create a sense of bonding with children, romance between adults, and trust within society. But new research has found oxytocin assures mankind extends sympathy along clearly delimited ethnic lines.

The New York Times describes “The Dark Side of Oxytocin, the Hormone of Love”:

The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in- group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.

The finding is the result of extensive testing conducted by a team of Dutch psychologists led by Dr. Carsten K. W. De Dreu of the University of Amsterdam. Their paper, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,”was published online just days ago. “Ethnocentrism is a very basic part of humans, and it’s not something we can change by education,” De Dreu concluded.

The team had Dutch men inhale a puff of oxytocin or placebo 40 minutes before engaging in a series of tests designed to measure their feelings toward in-group and out-group members, “us” and “them.” The psychologists asked them to respond by pressing a button when they saw a pair of names, finding the subjects who received the oxytocin responded more readily when that set included a Dutch name instead of an Arab or German one. The hesitation reflected an aversion to the out-group.

The group then took two moral dilemma tests, being told they could save the lives of many people by having one person hit by a train. The psychologists varied the name of the sacrificial victim between Dutch, German, and Arab names. As the New York Times phases it,“Subjects who had taken oxytocin were far more likely to sacrifice the Muhammads than the Maartens.”

Researchers were quick to point out this was not caused by an increased hostility to minorities but a greater loyalty to their own ethnic group. But they recognize the hormone’s role in arousing a protective instinct when someone feels threatened by a member of an out-group, such as another ethnicity.

This study built upon experiments Dr. Dreu administered and analyzed in June. “Our study shows that oxytocin not only plays a role in modulating cooperation and benevolence, but also in driving aggression,” De Dreu said. Over three tests, he found people were less likely to share financial resources with those who belong to an out-group. In an update of the prisoner’s dilemma, students who received oxytocin refused to cooperate with members of an out-group out of fear the other group would break the agreement and despoil their kinfolk. The greater the threat of harm, the more likely the group would preemptively attack the outsiders to protect themselves.

Giving soldiers a dose of oxytocin “might make them more cooperative towards their comrades, even willing to self-sacrifice,” De Dreu said, “but it should make them more likely to launch a preemptive strike against the competing army, with conflict-escalation being the most likely consequence.”

Significantly, the same test did not find that increased ethnic solidarity led to unprovoked offenses. Even when offered greater rewards for harming those who had not attacked them, the group resisted. De Dreu wrote,“Results showed that oxytocin drives a ‘tend and defend’ response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.”

So despite the caricature of racially conscious Whites goose-stepping out to liquidate their neighbors, the biological reality is that ethnic solidarity promotes in-group cohesion, altruism, and protection–for “their own kind.”

The best the Times can muster by way of a refutation is Dr. Bruno B. Averbeck, “an expert on the brain’s emotional processes at the National Institute of Mental Health.” He hypothesizes that effects of oxytocin only apply to in cases in which the individual has no information about the out-group, and once out-groups are a known entity, the brain may rely on a considered judgment rather than its natural, subliminal, and biological inclinations. He expressed surprise when confronted by the facts. “It’s really surprising to me that this neurotransmitter can so specifically affect these social behaviors,” he said.

This new scientific research shows that the cause of ethnocentrism is hardwired and inescapable. Diversity’s dissidents may not have known the neurological impetus but honest observers have known it borders on a universal constant. Warring against the inner workings of human biology, multiculturalists promote the “anti-racist” regime de rigueur in Western cosmopolitan societies through public school indoctrination, televised propaganda, and sensitivity training. Oxytocin may activate the “Sub-Racism” described by Colin Liddell. Dr. De Dreu’s findings suggest the multi-ethnic cause is hopeless, because people of all races reject it at a subconscious, chemical level. An expanding pool of minority groups diminishes altruism, encourages distrust, and makes social divides deeper and more permanent. Promoting interracial contact means promoting conflict.

Dr. De Dreu believes this mother bear instinct developed during evolution. He said, “In the ancestral environment it was very important for people to detect in others whether they had a long-term commitment to the group.” This holds more true today, when citizens in the West are increasingly surrounded by highly cohesive, relatively impermeable minority groups nursing a sense of historical grievance against them. The oxytocin works both ways.

It may be that the only way to prevent a racial conflagration is to use our brains.

Islam was brought to the world by a prophet who alone had to begin this revelation, he couldn't read or write let alone be in the power to forbid slavery all together. He was a man alone

I thought it was brought by Allah.

Who is apparently all powerful and knowing etc.....

Not that powerful then really given his word is supposed to be timeless

You only have to go on the Britain First facebook to see that, and even if people "only" call Muslims the above, that's OK is it?

Mister Morality, I think you'll find that it is you who is quite intolerant, judging by your posts...

The angels gave the prophet the word of Allah and then the prophet spread the word of Allah to the people,
Allah didn't go whisper the message in the worlds ears..

A tolerant ideology allows people to do what they like without enforcing laws to coerce others to adhere to a way of thinking. This is the ideology of small government libertarian conservatism. An intolerant ideology is modern liberalism/progressivism where equality is mandated by laws and hate speech laws are arbitrarily written up to banish wrong think. This is what Islam does and it's not to our nation's benefit.

bullying and racism are natural behaviours, that promote conformity, and carried out when your world view is threatened by a differing one

http://brainblogger.com/2013/02/01/bullying-a-rational-choice/

The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?

How do you square the muslim argument that by not allowing them to have laws based on their faith you are restricting their rights?

What? When did I even mention that? You're drawing conclusions out of nothing.

How many Muslims have enforced "laws" How many have actually been done by non Muslims in their ivory towers? And you could equally say that about Christianity or Judaism... The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?

There is no such thing as Islamophobia...

I'm just trying to spin your argument

you said to Mister Morality 'The country no longer really uses religion to make laws. Do you want to get rid of Muslims? Or have the rights of Muslims restricted?'
So I wonder how you would respond to a muslim who made the argument that by NOT allowing laws to be based on his faith you are restricting the rights of Muslims'

I was wondering if in your reply we could also accuse you of not wanting Muslims in this country given you would argue (I would assume) that we should restrict the rights of Muslims in this case.

But Christianity has been here for Hundreds of years. It is the establushed religion and part of our culture. Islam and Christianity are not equal at all. Our culture is based on a mixture of Pagan ceremony and Christian doctrine.

Someone already said this: tththe 'how many' is irrelevant when the laws and regulations are being passed and Muslim community treated with kid gloves if they commit a crime, even as bad as child abuse. Do not forget to whom this country belongs.

Agreed. "Islamophobe" is a nonsene, made up word that implies that there is something wrong with me should I dare criticise Islam (i.e. I have an irrational fear of Islam.)

With regards to the topic in question, it's yet another reason to ban the Burkha, Hijab or any Muslim heas covering. Hate crimes would go down if no one wore them.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Do you spend days researching and investigating your own religion?
How do i even know you are muslim?
Islam was brought to the world by a prophet who alone had to begin this revelation, he couldn't read or write let alone be in the power to forbid slavery all together. He was a man alone, in no position of power.
When he was in a position of power 'rise of islam', he was only in the position of power among the muslims, where the slaves became muslim too and freed.
MAJORITY of ARABS were not MUSLIM.


The system was impossible to get rid of since there were kings and rulers, the prophet said that if you have a slave then you must give him the same clothes that you wear, same living conditions, same food, in fact the standards were so high that it was like keeping a brother not a slave, those rules were put there so that people are put off taking in slaves at ALL. A slave had to be treated like a family member which people couldn't afford. So they stopped keeping slaves but not all muslims were abiding by the laws or non muslims

Imagine a man alone trying to change capitalism in today's age, literally impossible, he could make a few changes to the system gradually but he can never bring it down completely because he is in no power.

Our prophet was not born into power

Sorry, theres nothing about allowing rape of those that arent muslim in that quote.

Every word is a "made up word" and it's not Islamophobic to criticise Islam. It is however Islamophobic to hate Muslims. And even if you decide it's a "made up word" why then is it OK to be prejudiced against Muslims, and to hate Muslims exactly?

So..what you're saying is Muslims should have to restrict the wearing of religious garb because OTHER PEOPLE may decide to commit hate crimes?

So you're blaming the victim of hate crimes? I guess you're also one of those "Oh well. She was asking for it" people?