Friday, 29 April 2016

Why men are afraid of women but can never admit this even to themselves

Jews are not to blame for feminism. It is well-known that even the Chosen People themselves lose control over their women from time to time and break their own rules. Why should they be blamed if they live in the land of the gentiles whose laws are matriarchal? It is however possible to argue that the degenerate matriarchal West are the Amalekites Jews are exhorted by God to exterminate. Jews living amongst degenerate gentiles would unavoidably become corrupted. This is presumably what Muslims fear for themselves too, when they call for sharia. 

Jews fear Jewesses so much they want to ban them from singing.

Muslims fear their women so much they cover them from head to toe.

How much men fear women is the implicit expression of female power. 


This must be the halachic form of putting women in a burkha. Why are men so afraid of us?I guess men have always found us scary, huh?

They know they must never actually admit this, or we would lose all respect for them.

It is shameful to be frightened of someone you know to be weaker, stupider and poorer than you just because you want to fuck them and know they can mess with your emotions and hurt your feelings. It is like a master being afraid of his slave.

Women are allowed to say they fear their father, husband or son, but men are never allowed to say they fear their mother, wife or daughter, BUT THEY DO. If these men love their mother, wife or daughter, they will fear at least the loss of their affection. It is only natural to fear losing the affection of those whom you love.

But how do you assert your authority over them while keeping their affection?

This cannot be done without exercising male authority and it has been all but lost in the West. That is why the West is now being flushed down the toilet by feminism.

Who should be blamed for feminism? Not Jews and not women. Not Jews because they couldn't exert authority over their women when all the laws in their society were feminist. Not women because they were just pushing the boundaries. 

Who then?

Men of course, for allowing it to happen in the first place. 

If you as a parent leave your home in charge of your adolescent daughter without strict instructions or the supervision of a responsible adult, you are to blame if you come back a month later to find your home trashed and your daughter pregnant by God knows whom. 

Stop punishing Ken Livingstone for saying you that don't have to like Jews to be a Zionist

Territories considered
Throughout the first decade of the Zionist movement, there were several instances where Zionist figures supported a Jewish state in places outside Palestine, such as Uganda and Argentina.

If you want to send a Jew somewhere out of your country this would mean giving them a Jewish homeland. At one time Madagascar and Uganda amongst others was being proposed as the Jewish homeland.

Technically Naz Shah MP is also a Zionist , because she remains a supporter of a Jewish homeland, just not in Israel.

We all know that there are actually more Jews in America than in Israel, don't we?

If you support a Jewish homeland - whatever your reasons for doing so - then you are a Zionist.

Being a Zionist doesn't mean you are necessarily well-disposed towards Jews, just as you don't have necessarily have good intentions towards a woman just because you want to have sex with her. It could just mean you want Jews to have a place to go to after you kick them out of your country. This was basically Hitler's Madagascar Plan.

You are arguably more considerate of Jewish welfare if you make arrangements for a new Jewish homeland than if you just kicked them out of your country, bag and baggage, without alternative accommodation.

How is making these points anti-Semitic? OK, Jews may get offended if you say these things because it brings back many unpleasant memories, but that doesn't mean you hate them, does it? If Jews hate you for saying things they don't like but which need to be said, does that turn you into an anti-Semite? Surely not, I would argue.

Jews being protected from offence will just make gentiles hate them even more, because they will understandably conclude that there is a Jewish conspiracy protecting Jews from having their feelings hurt or having jokes made about them, while the rest of us have to suffer it in silence.

As a libertarian, I don't think there should be thoughtcrime legislation against people hating other people. The more you tell people not to hate a certain group, the more they are likely to, just because the individual feels it is his right to hate whoever he wants to and naturally resents being told by the state whom he may or may not hate.

I am reminded of an episode of Fawlty Towers in which Basil Fawlty just couldn't stop himself from talking about the war when he had German guests even when he knew he mustn't because it would upset them.

I am also reminded of a time when blacks got all huffy and puffy when a white man used the word "niggardly" because they thought he was being rude about blacks because it sounded like "nigger".

It is so sad that even Jews have been dumbed down so much they don't even know the definition of Zionism. Technically, Naz Shah MP and Hitler are indeed Zionists. Even if we suspect Ken Livingstone of not regarding Jews as his favourite people, in a free society he has an absolute right to say what is after all true.

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

From 1:16 if you want to go straight to the Holocaust.

Questions for Dr Feldman and Shami Chakrabarti on anti-Semitism

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Is the reason why the Queen won't abdicate because she thinks Charles will convert to Islam as Charles III?

Let's assume that's the real reason, so let's assume that Charles is king and has just announced that he has converted to Islam, daring everyone to do their worst. Let us now deal with this constitutional crisis.

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Under Article 9 which includes everyone and this must include reigning monarchs, Charles has the right to freedom of religion.

They would force him to abdicate, of course, but he will have made his point.

Or, he could persuade the House to amend the Act of Settlement.

He could put the following questions to the House:

Q. Why can't Charles III be Muslim?

A. Because the constitution says no non-Anglican may be included in the succession.

Q. Why can't the constitution be changed then?

A. Because the House doesn't want to change it.

Q. Why doesn't the House want to change the constitution?

A.. Because the House doesn't want to rock the boat.

Q. Why doesn't the House want to rock the boat?

A. Because the House doesn't want to frighten the horses.

Q. Who might these frightened horses be?

A. They would be Islamophobic frightened horses.

Q. Which is worse? 1) frightened Islamophobic horses 2) the withholding of religious freedom to a reigning British king

A.  Frightened Islamophobic horses everywhere would run wild endangering lives and property while no one cares about withholding a king's religious freedom.

Q.  Fine, if you won't amend the Act of Settlement then I will have to abdicate in favour of William the Air Ambulance Pilot with the plebeian accent and in need desperate need of elocution lessons as you wish, but I would like you to give reasons. So you are saying that the preferences of Islamophobic commoners ignoramuses trumps a king's right to religious freedom?

A.  Well, Anglicanism has been the national religion of England since Henry VIII.

Q.  What was the national religion of England during the reign of Bloody Mary, his eldest daughter?

A.  We cannot deny it was Catholicism.

Q.  What was the religion of England during the reign of Elizabeth I, his younger daughter?

A.  We cannot deny that it reverted to Anglicanism.

Q.  The institution of the monarchy survived despite these changes of monarchs and the national religion, has it not?

A.  We cannot deny that the monarchy has indeed survived despite these religious upheavals.

Q.  Don't you think it can survive another one then?

A.  Perhaps it can but we don't want to take the risk.

Q.  For the monarchy to be relevant, it has to be deal with the concerns of ordinary Britons. Islam is much on their minds and it is time for a national debate. The view of these Islamophobic and hypocritical ignoramuses is that Christianity is a better religion than Islam, is it not?

A.  We cannot deny this, but why do you call them hypocritical?

Q.  I call these Islamophobic ignoramuses hypocritical because they are not even Christian. They prefer Christianity to Islam precisely because the Church of England fails to condemn the sexual liberation they all enjoy. Is this not so?

A.  We cannot deny this, but there are those who love church traditions, its music and architecture and suchlike.

Q.  They can still have those things even if I'm Muslim. My son the Air Ambulance Pilot can be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury when his time comes, if the Church of England is still in existence by then, or he can convert to Judaism or Buddhism as he pleases. Any more objections?

A.  How are we going to sell this to the people who will be ranting and raving in their predictably Islamophobic way?  

Q.  You could point out to them that if Henry VIII had been Muslim he could have just taken another wife when Catherine of Aragon failed to give him a son. Or divorced her and married Anne Boleyn. It just wouldn't have been that big a deal. Think of all the bloodshed that would have been avoided if Henry VIII had been Muslim. The European Wars of Religion were about Christians killing each other. The Inquisition would have been avoided too. As for Edward VIII, he could have married the divorced woman he loved and kept the crown without the hypocritical establishment having fits of the vapours. There is a whole chapter in the Koran just about divorce, you know.

A.  Point taken, Sir. 

Tweets on the Queen's 90th birthday and the modern uses of a constitutional monarchy

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

How Britain lost its world empire and why sexual morality matters

'Britain is an old and declining empire embarrassed by its weakness'

Parliament did not vote on war on 3rd August 1914

The two ruinous world wars Britain inexplicably fought

Paul Craig Roberts:

America became a superpower because of the self-destruction of other countries.

That's right, folks. Americans didn't actually fight for their overseas empire, the dumb ass British handed theirs to them on a platter.

7 August 2015

Descendants of cannon fodder complain about British foreign policy and the genetic and moral damage it caused to the British race. Gentiles being cruel to Jews should not surprise anyone who has seen Fiddler on the Roof or read The Merchant of Venice. Anti-Semitism has always been endemic in Christian Europe and the Catholic Church was clearly to blame.  

St. Pius V in the bull Hebraeorum gens (26 February 1569) did not reference blood libel, but he did make multiple accusations against the Jews, including: usury, theft, receiving stolen goods, pimping, divination and magic. He finishes with this accusation: "Finally, we have sufficiently investigated and explored how unworthily this perverse race attacks the name of Christ; how much hated it is by all those who bear that name; and, finally, with what cunning it plots against their lives."

Pope Benedict XIV wrote a bull Beatus Andreas (22 February 1755) in which he does not express any doubt concerning the murders of children ascribed to the Jews. He states they are perpetrated "out of hatred of Christ" and "out of hatred for the Christian faith" in his De servorum Dei beatificatione. In the bull he speaks about determining what is to be done "when there arises a case of this sort, which often comes to be put forward, concerning some boy who was slain by the Hebrews in Holy Week out of hostility to Christ, such as Blessed Simon and Anderl and also many of the other murdered boys whom the authors mention".

The Edict of Expulsion has not yet been repealed. 

VIDEO: The effects of the war on terror

VIDEO: The effects of the war on terror: Research director of advocacy group CAGE, Asim Qureshi, delivered a lecture at the University Cape Town on the war on terror and its subsequent effects on Muslims worldwide.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Claire Khaw tries to save adulterers from being stoned, but may not have succeeded

What would happen to her though?
Firstly, the prosecution will assess if there is any evidence against her, for which she can be tried.
If there isn't, there would be no trial.
If there is, she would stand trial.
Secondly, the court will listen to the prosecution and the defence along with all witnesses and evidence.
They have the dress. They know it is her dress and they know it is stained with his DNA.
Have you read my link?
Should I?
Of course!
I want you to tell me if what I think would happen is correct.
Does it add any benefit to the progression of science?
We are not talking about science, are we? We are talking about law and morality.
Pure or social?
Social science.
We are talking about sharia law, actually.
Read it and you will see.
I've read it.
And ... ?
The verse 4/15 refers to sexual intercourse
So, your inference isn't correct.
What is the point of 24:2 then?
24:2 is about the non married man / woman committing fornication.
Lewd act short of full intercourse makes more sense.
4;15 is about married women.
Sahih International: Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way. Pickthall: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). Yusuf Ali: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. Shakir: And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them. Muhammad Sarwar: Those of your women who commit fornication, let four (Muslim) witness testify to their act. If there is sufficient testimony, confine them to their homes until they die, or until God provides a way for their freedom. Mohsin Khan: And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way. Arberry: Such of your women as commit indecency, call four of you to witness against them; and if they witness, then detain them in their houses until death takes them or God appoints for them a way.
It didn't mention married women.
Lewdness is just a translation of the Arabic الفاحشة
Married women is inferred by "your" women.
I don't know any Arabic, so the point's lost on me.
Sahih International: The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. Pickthall: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. Yusuf Ali: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. Shakir: (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. Muhammad Sarwar: Flog the fornicatress and the fornicator with a hundred lashes each. Let there be no reluctance in enforcing the laws of God, if you have faith in God and the Day of Judgment. Let it take place in the presence of a group of believers. Mohsin Khan: The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's Law). Arberry: The fornicatress and the fornicator -- scourge each one of them a hundred stripes, and in the matter of God's religion let no tenderness for them seize you if you believe in God and the Last Day; and let a party of the believers witness their chastisement.
Not necessarily.
So what happens to adulterers and adulteresses?
The Arabic text has to be understood in the context of the language. If you don't know Arabic, no point making judgements.
So what happens to adulterers and adulteresses?
If 24:2 does not apply to married people committing adultery, are you saying there is no punishment for adultery?
That's where there is some contention between traditionalists and modernists.
What is the source of this contention?
No clear Quranic prescription
Do you believe fornication should be punished but not adultery?
I'm not a person. I'm an organisation.
Very well then. Does your organisation believe fornication should be punished, but not adultery?
Both are legal in the UK. So, there is no judicial punishment for either. However, they are both major sins, which are detested by Islam.
If the UK were an Islamic State, are you saying Muslims would want fornication to be punished, but not adultery?
If the UK was an Islamic state, they would define the legal framework then, according to the judicial parameters set by the judiciary.
What does YOUR ORGANISATION believe to be the appropriate punishment for adultery?
Before punishing either, the state would need to propagate decency.
Decency has to be a norm.
Let us assume that has been done, then what?
Then, the judiciary would define the parameters.
And how would the judiciary define these parameters?
According to the legal reference which may be shariah, common law, European law, human right conventions, etc. We don't know, until it happens.
Don't you think it would make more sense to interpret 24:2 as applying to both fornication and adultery?
Quranic text cannot interpreted in isolation. There are contexts.
Can we ask you a question?
Of course.
Why the article about Monica in relation to Quran?
Even Americans think she's a slut. Islam can be useful to the West as a tool of slut-shaming and a weapon against degenerate feminism. While Muslims may not care about non-Muslims in the West, they should bear in mind that their degenerate culture will soon affect subsequent generations of Muslims living in the West. Degenerate Liberals will not be happy until they see the first gay marriage being conducted in a mosque. I blog about the application of sharia to demonstrate my knowledge of it too, obviously. By demonstrating its application I hope to make it more appealing. Currently Westerners have made an idol of the slut and democracy it is this worship of these idols that makes them fools to themselves. I mean by that that Feminism and Democracy are their sacred cows. My purpose is to be iconoclastic.
In a matriarchy, older and wiser heterosexual men are lower in status to the bimbo and gay man
The degeneracy of the West is evidenced by its rejection of any idea that points to its degeneracy
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
"Quranic text cannot interpreted in isolation. There are contexts." You mean you have to follow the Hadith, which says stone them to death?
The Quran was revealed in a time and space questions, addressing issues and matters. To read the verses in isolation would be to misread the purpose of revelation.
So, there are hundreds of verses which refer to specific incidents. One needs to understand those incidents, to understand the Quran.
You just want to stone adulterers/follow the Hadith, which isn't even in the Koran.
The Koran is the word of God, the Hadith only the reported speech and deeds of the prophet by his companions. I know you Muslims prefer this secondary source because, well, that's what you've been doing for centuries now.
It would be commonsensical to reject anything in the Hadith that contradicts the Koran, but it seems you lot are too far gone now to think of doing such a thing. Stoning or nothing, eh?
I don't think we ever mentioned stoning. You've brought that up.
I did notice that you were very careful to avoid mentioning it, being a Hadither.
We absolutely follow Sunnah which is a source of legislation.
We follow Quran and Sunnah as primary sources, and a whole lot of secondary sources.
Yes, I know. The nastiest things in Islam come from the Hadith, which you lot prefer to the Koran. I do know about this. You would rather stone adulterers to death.
The Koran is the PRIMARY SOURCE of the Word of God, because that is what it claims to be.
The Hadith can only be a secondary source of rules, but I know you people are immune to logic.
Much more fun to stone adulterers to death, I know.
Koran = by God
Hadith = by mortal men
BIG DIFFERENCE. But you prefer to stone adulterers to death.
So, how do you explain Verse 4:80?
Or 59:7?
Or indeed 53: 1-5?
4:80 He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah ; but those who turn away - We have not sent you over them as a guardian.
A clear indication that the Messenger is a source of legislation
That just means people should follow the prophet. Now that he is dead and cannot be followed, we follow the Koran, which is the PRIMARY SOURCE of God's word, trumping the Hadtih.
That's nonsense
Because the verb is in the present / future tense
59:7 has no relevance now, because it only applies to what Muslims had to do when the prophet was still alive.
What verb?
Which verb in which verse?
Do you know Arabic?
We have been through this before and I told you NO.
And you will say because I don't know Arabic you win the argument.
So, you aren't in a position to debate the Quran.
So go ahead and stone adulterers. Enjoy.
We never brought up stoning. YOU did???
What does the Hadith say about the punishment for adulterers then?
All these contortions and convolutions, just because sadists like you want to stone adulterers to death.
My advice to you is 17:36
I know Hadithers want to stone adulterers TO DEATH.
No such thing as hadithers.
My advice to you is 17:36
What does the Hadith say about adulterers?
Why are fixated on adultery?
Why are fixated on Monica? And "sluts" as you put it?
Don't judge others! Judge yourself.
Judge yourself before you will be judged by the Almighty.
Because the Koran does not say stone adulterers to death. It is an INNOVATION.
Are you Muslim?
I do judge myself.
We have been through this before. Can you scroll back to my answer?
Stop judging others, then.
Move on.
Get a life!
Are you telling me not to be judgemental? You sound just like a liberal!
How odd for someone who wants to stone adulterers to death!
Let he who has no sin cast the first stone!
Claire, stop being childish.
What does the Hadith say about the punishment for adulterers? Surely you know!
Claire, are you a nazi?
I'll tell you after you answer my question about what the Hadith says about the punishment for adulterers.
I've asked enough times.
No need. You are a nazi!
How am I a Nazi?
And you have the audacity to accuse me of being a sadist?
What a clever way of changing the subject when you won't answer the question about what the Hadith says about the punishment for adulterers.
You follow the Hadith, which means you want to stone adulterers to death.
Call me a Nazi if you want, but I ain't a member of the defunct Nazi |Party.
I am not even German.
What does the Hadith say about the punishment for adulterers?
Are you going to answer the question?
Is that you?
So, You ARE a nazi?
I have a niqab somewhere. Does that make me Muslim?
If I am photographed outside a police station with a policeman's helmet on my head, does that make me a policeman? I would suggest not. Now, how about answering my question about the punishment for adulterers in the Hadith.
So you love Hitler who gassed the Jews?
Where did I say that?
You're a Nazi.
A fascist
I am Facebook friends with Jews, who have seen those photos, incidentally.
A fascist - is that a social conservative?
Did the Jews deserve to be killed?
Is that why you hate Monica?
I thought Muslims are also social conservatives, aren't they?
Because she's a Jew?
Was Monica's ma Jewish?
If not, then she ain't no Jew.
Let me check.
I'm happy to have unveiled you. Bye.

You can no longer send messages to this person.

The Qur'an does not mention the act of stoning. However, according to one hadith this is because the verse(s) calling for rajm were accidentally eaten by a goat.

[Narrated 'Aisha] "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."

Muslim scholars have rejected this hadith, however because all common routes of transmission of it either contain narrators charged with dishonesty when disclosing their sources, or (in the case of the version in Ibn Hanbal's Musnad) conflict with all versions of the hadith which bear authentic routes - none of which mention the goat eating the piece of paper.