Translate

Friday 30 March 2018

CrossTalk on Anti-Russia Hysteria: Crisis Point?

Tahir Nasser - a clever young man to watch

voiceofislam.co.uk/shows/reflections/


I subsequently discovered the answer to my own question. A very talented young man.

http://rationalreligion.co.uk/

I was therefore very disappointed to note that he wrote this dishonest piece about Trump, equating him with white supremacy, racism and Nazism.

If white people want to think themselves superior to other races, why not let them think so?
The people who really are obliged to think of themselves as superior to all other races are of course the Jews, but I am quite happy to let them think this of themselves because of all the stuff they have to do as Jews to keep themselves superior.

White people think of themselves as the superior race because of the success of Western imperialism, but nothing lasts forever.

Even the Romans knew you should not rest on your laurels whether they be racial or otherwise.
The Jews have never been allowed to rest on their laurels by God and understand that all the suffering that is inflicted on them is done to teach them and gentiles a lesson. Jews are after all a microcosm of humanity. To study Jews, their history and Judaism is to gain a greater understanding of morality and how its rules protect your identity as an individual and as a group.

If you are identifiably a race then you would be objectively identifiable as a member of that race with common racial characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race#Nazism

What racial characteristics do IC1 peoples with blond hair and blue eyes share with Iranians and North Indians?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_codes

None that I can see. So the idea that Germans being Aryans and racially distinctive to Slaves is a complete nonsense.

I don't think even Hitler thought Germans were really a superior race. The evidence is that they had to make up some rot about Germans and Nordic people (but not Slavs) being really Aryan which is both incoherent and confusing. However, the idea was to tell the Germans to believe in themselves as being special and better than all the rest, fight Hitler's imperialistic wars and thereby become great. (While Hitler's plan was indeed to Make Germany Great Again by waging imperialistic wars, Trump's plan to Make America Great Again was to avoid imperialistic wars. The whole point of Britain fighting two World Wars was to Keep Britain Great and Prevent Germany from Becoming Greater Than Britain.) Slavs ie Russians, who are racially indistinguishable from Scandinavians, could not be Aryan because Germany was planning to invade Russia.

We already know Jews come in four colours: black, brown, yellow and white

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng_Jews
http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm

This means that after all the stringent rules of Judaism, Jews have ended up with the same racial varieties as the gentile.

This means Judaism is not really about racial characteristics but parentage, upbringing and tradition - an idea as old as the hills.

Racial superiority rests on following your religious principles after choosing the right religion
If Americans want to control immigration and voted Trump in order to express that aspiration, then it is their prerogative. It was not just whites who voted Trump but non-whites too made uneasy about uncontrolled immigration. This fact Nasser signally omitted to mention in his hurry to link Trump to slavery. It was actually a disgraceful article and one presented to the leftist Huffington Post. Perhaps that alone should be enough to put us on our guard.

Perhaps one of the reasons why the Ahmadiyyas are distrusted and despised by other Muslims and the only Muslim group permitted a Caliph by the British Empire was because they are co-opted Muslims with the stamp of approval from the British government. 

Was Twitter right to ban Tommy Robinson?


Tommy Robinson has been banned from Twitter for saying "Islam promotes killing people."

I happen to agree with this.

Judaism and Christianity are not exactly pacific either, so why should no comment be made about Jews and Christians killing their enemy in war but Muslims denounced for doing the very same thing?

If there are just wars, then there must also logically and necessarily be just acts of terrorism. Even Westerners acknowledge this because they practically deified Nelson Mandela who was convicted of terrorist offences.

One man's meat is another man's poison.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Nelson Mandela managed to be both in one lifetime.

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights


-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983
-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985
-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988
-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986
-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead
-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987
-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988


Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”


Robinson complains about blasphemy laws by the backdoor. The real purpose of blasphemy laws is more about public order than protecting the feelings of people from offence. 

To say that "Islam promotes killing people" implies that Muslims are killers. To suggest Muslims in particular are killers is arguably inciting hatred against them and inviting Islamophobes to form the conclusion that they must adopt a strategy of "kill or be killed" and act on it.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/28/tommy-robinson-suspended-from-twitter-days-after-hyde-park-freedom-of-speech-event/

Indeed, such a strategy has already been adopted and implemented by violent Islamophobes. Punish A Muslim Day is on Tuesday 3 April 2018 according to this report.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/punish-muslim-day-letters-points-islamophobic-hate-crime-counter-terrorism-police-bradford-a8249571.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520777/Muslim-woman-mown-grinning-far-right-activist-stops-PICTURE-anti-Islam-rally-troubled-Brussels-district-Molenbeek.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3879271/car-crash-newcastle-westgate-eid-accident-terror/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3865855/darren-osborne-charged-with-terrorism-related-murder-and-attempted-murder-following-the-finsbury-park-mosque-attack/


The hatred of Muslims in the West was created by uncontrolled immigration and the creation of protected groups privileged by PC laws.

The NATO policy of bombing Muslim countries in neocon wars and then letting them come here expecting them to be grateful explains why they Muslims are perceived to be terrorists.

Also, coming from a culture of patriarchy, Muslim sex offenders would be more efficient at preying on unsupervised adolescent schoolgirls than Islamophobic sex offenders, because Muslim sex predators are more likely to cooperate with each other by sharing information and resources while Islamophobic sex predators tend to work alone.

What a shame then that people are being distracted by what they think is protecting the free speech of the indigenous Islamophobe when it is really Western foreign, social, economic and immigration policy that is what should be discussed openly, honestly and robustly to get to the bottom of the matter.

Thursday 29 March 2018

To protect civilisation, men must be protected from immoral women

There are very few rational women. Men know this and let them get away with all kinds of shit because they instinctively excuse them when they fancy them. The brains of men fall out of their skulls when they see a woman they fancy, but in a corrupt and degenerate matriarchy, the woman they fancy is invariably immoral, promiscuous and neurotic. When men collectively allow immoral and neurotic women to dominate their lives, their civilisation is destroyed.

In America, the corrupt sexually-liberated media is suggesting to its sexually-liberated anti-Trump politicians that the word of a porn actress who went back on her word is to be taken much more seriously than that of their President, because it is the tendency of matriarchies to feel threatened by an alpha male leader.


Hear Dmitry Babich from the 11th minute.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/

Dmitry Babich says the ultra-[sexually] liberal Americans are now making a porn star their heroine because they hate the idea of an alpha male leader as their President


From the 11th minute

Dmitry Babich made a great point about Stormy Daniels being made a heroine by corrupt liberal-feminist media.

Liberal media serves no purpose other than to spin a narrative for our stupid and corrupt politicians to pretend to believe, so they vote for more war.

The media no longer even cares what the ordinary voter thinks, but is just there as a way of writing history before it has happened. Future historians will think what they saw on media was the justification for war and the preponderance of the media material will be pro-war.

There were all those anti-war protests in 2003.

Apparently, either 6 to 11 million or 8 to 30 million people participated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests

Apparently, at least 6 million Westerners who demonstrated could deduce from the facts alone that war was not a good idea but Western politicians who were supposed to be more informed than us, could not.

Democracy is nothing but a cover for war.

We are Athens, Russia is Sparta, and NATO is the Delian League. Ukraine is the latest Delos.

Probably, Muslims will be the New Romans.

https://www.facebook.com/Americans-Against-Aggressive-Neocon-Foreign-Policy-416842915167525/

Melanie Phillips and Germaine Greer made the most sense but still lost the debate: this means most feminists are immune to reason and cannot be trusted to be fair




Saturday 24 March 2018

Rastafarian denounces Muslim activists in Speakers Corner for hypocrisy and the idolatry of worshipping a gay white man called Paul


Rastafarian:


A gay Muslim is an oxymoron. It's like saying you are a paedophile Muslim or a racist Muslim. [Or a Jewish Nazi or a Nazi who loves Jews, presumably.]
You can't classify yourself as a gay Muslim.
A [Muslim] hypocrite is worse than a kafir. 
You know how Shaitan is going to come to Muslims? He is not going to come saying 'Muslims this and Muslims that' and put their backs up. He's going to come in the form of a nice little white guy calling himself a gay Muslim. That's how Shaitan is going to infiltrate Islam. Allah says it is an abomination! 
I don't worship no white man called Paul! [The Rastafarian is suggesting that these Muslims whom he alleges to be hypocrites are making an idol of Paul - and thereby practising idolatry - because he is white and gay. Being nice to him allows them to make them seem moderate and tolerant. It is most unlikely that these Muslim activists would be quite so tolerant with gay men of their own race.]
I am African and a Rastaman. [He is proudly proclaiming that Africans and Rastafarians abhor sodomites and makes the usual point about the anus being a sewer and certainly not where a moral man should insert his sex organ.]


When the allegedly hypocritical Muslim points out that Paul is not a practising sodomite, Rastaman says "Then he shouldn't call himself gay." Presumably he means that Paul should have the decency to stay in the closet rather than let it all hang out and make Muslims think it is OK to be Muslim and gay.

The Rastafarian makes the point that these brown Muslims are guilty of idolatry and therefore of worshipping Paul rather than Allah and allowing their worship of a gay white Muslim convert to triumph over their Islamic principles because they perceive Paul as a valuable token of Muslim tolerance and moderation.




Rastafarian complains that while Paul has said he is not a practising sodomite, he has not absolutely promised that he will never have sex with another man. 

Rastafarian says he is more Muslim than the Muslims who pretend sodomy is OK to display their Western tolerance and inclusiveness and accuses them of assimilating.

Rastaman says most of the Hadith comes from the Torah.

These Muslims have allowed Paul, the West and LGBT rights to triumph over Allah.



Friday 23 March 2018

How Jews could solve the problem of antisemitism

I attended the worst talk ever because I did not read the small print and thought Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad would be the speakers




The small print I did not read:

Description
YOUNG SCHOLAR SEMINAR SERIES -9-
"The Political Philosophy of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad: Dissent, Race, and Gender"
By Walaa Quisay (University of Oxford )
Date: Thursday 22 March 2018
Time: 7 pm
Venue: 10 Maple Street, London, W1T 5HA

FREE ADMISSION but registiration required via eventbrite!

Abstract: In the 1990’s, a network of western-born students had culminated their studies in the ‘traditional centres’ of knowledge in the Muslim world. They came back with the intent of transmitting the ‘traditional’ knowledge they attained to the wider Muslim community. From amongst them, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad were increasingly becoming notable religious authorities. To their community of followers and students, they represented a connection to an authentic religious tradition marginalised by modernist voices. Their religious discourse was both highly intellectual and deeply spiritual; at a time when there was a seeming decline in both intellect and spirituality. Unlike the various religious actors that espoused activist tendencies, politics was not at the forefront of their discourse. Still it was not absent. Embedded within the shuyukh’s social critique were guiding political principles. This paper discusses the shuyukh’s political philosophy through three broad themes: activism and dissent against the state in principle - in Muslim majority and minority contexts, race and identity politics, and gender roles and feminism. The paper will highlight how the critique of ‘modernity’ is interlinked and reaffirms notions of authority and stability in the political philosophy of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad.

Walaa Quisay is a 4th year DPhil student at the University of Oxford in the Faculty of Oriental Studies. She works on the sociology and anthropology of religion. Her thesis looks at the neo-traditionalist critique of modernity and political philosophy. Her case studies are Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, and Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah. She completed her Masters at the University of Exeter where submitted her thesis on ‘The epistemologies of progressive Muslims’. Her BA was at SOAS; there she conducted research on the relationship of Sufi Tariqas to the state in Egypt. She will be a Visiting Research Fellow at Sehir University in 2019.


Actually, I did read it, but thought it meant Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad would be there, plus some probably lefty Muslim woman I had never heard of.


Hizb ut Tahrir accuse Claire Khaw of not sticking to facts



If you want to know more, you have to read this 40 page document at
www.hizb-australia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mehodology-of-Hizb-ut-Tahrir-for-Change.pdf

or 131 pages at http://www.hizb-australia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Method-To-Re-establish-Khilafah.pdf if you really are a glutton for punishment because no one at HT is going to engage with you on anything because they are either too arrogant or too frightened to answer questions.

If you can't be bothered to read boring Islamic documents of great length, tough. That's as much as their dawah goes.

Wednesday 21 March 2018

Marriage and democracy

Only those who are parents of legitimate offspring or want to become parents of legitimate offspring would support marriage. If there are more parents of bastard offspring and more bastards than there are those who are legitimate, then you would expect slut single mothers, morally compromised slut fuckers who have sired bastard offspring, sodomites and bastards not to support marriage. Since this is already the case, it highlights the moral bankruptcy of democracy and tells us it is time to take it out with the trash.

What does it mean to support marriage?

The most important rule of marriage is the forbidding and punishing of extramarital sex since the purpose of doing so is to make couples marry in order to have the right to have sex and children with each other.

If you allow people to have sex outside marriage ie fornication, sodomy, adultery etc, then people would predictably use these marriage substitutes to have exclusively recreational sex all their lives and not be troubled by the expense and inconvenience of rearing of the next generation either properly or at all.

A declining birth rate is a sign of a dying civilisation that cannot even replace itself in sufficient numbers to fight a successful defensive war. This means that such a society would have the characteristic of a risk-averse elderly woman and nations with this characteristic will be easily conquered by nations with the characteristic of enterprising young fighting men.

Slut single mothers, men who have sired bastard offspring with slut single mothers, bastards and sodomites who acknowledge that the next generation would be better off brought up by two married parents living together would at least support marriage in principle if not in practice, if they cared about the national interest.

If slut single mothers, fathers of bastards and LGBTs can neither acknowledge this truth nor accept the imperative of promoting the national interest, then they are clearly doubly subversive, making it even more justifiable to ignore their anti-marriage views. The views of those who are both selfish and intellectually dishonest should certainly be ignored.

New Muslim convert highlights the absurdity of the Trinity in just four tweets

Tuesday 20 March 2018

Why politicians should be married fathers

The politician who is a married father would have chosen a wife capable of bringing up his children properly. If he can't even get himself a decent wife and a good mother for his children and keep his own children under control - or lives in a society where the quality of women are so low that it is impossible for men to get themselves loyal wives or good mothers for their legitimate offspring and does nothing about it other than ignore this problem - why should he be trusted to lead the nation?

The rot in Britain set in with Ted Heath.


Transcript and commentary of Germaine Greer being interviewed by Mishal Husain on the subject of career rapees #MeToo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09vyvt2  From 2:21

http://www.howtoacademy.com/conferences/metoo-movement-gone-too-far-debate

Mishal Husain:


The Me Too Movement has gone too far - an assertion that will be debated tonight at an event in London. The writer and feminist professor Germaine Greer will be arguing for the motion.  She has previously said in relation to Harvey Weinstein: "If you spread your legs because he said 'Be nice to me and I'll give you a job in a movie' then that is tantamount to consent and it is too late to start whingeing. She's in our radio car now. Good  morning.  In what way do you think Me Too has gone too far?



Germaine Greer:


I don't actually think it's gone too far. I don't think it's got anywhere at all. We're still in the situation where you've got a storm of allegations about Weinstein, the collapse of his business and this isn't what we need. What we need is to sort out the law regarding rape and to sort out our concept of what it is, and it is pointless now to bring up all this stuff when with most of it no action will be taken because of the statute of limitations. Why wait 20 years?


Mishal Husain:


The reason why I phrased the question that way is because you will be arguing in favour of the motion that the Me Too Movement has gone too far tonight.
 

Germaine Greer:

Well, that's what the public has been told. I've pleaded with John Gordon not to do that because I don't think it's gone too far and I don't think we should be debating as if we all disagree. What's clear to me is that the law regarding rape does not work and people's concept of what is rape are very confused: some people think it's a crime of violence when violence is not necessarily involved at all.



Mishal Husain:

I want to come to your views on rape in just a moment because I know you are writing a book on that subject at the moment, but let's just stick to the Me Too Movement and what we have learned from that because there is a whole range of behaviours that is being called out under that hashtag and through that movement.  What is the problem with that? Is there any problem with people calling out behaviour that is inappropriate as well as unlawful?



Germaine Greer:

I'm the person who would call it when it happened and wouldn't have been sitting around being quiet and keep a secret which wasn't even a secret when it came to Weinstein, for example. People knew about it. A wire had been used in an interview with an actress who had been with Weinstein which was in the possession of the New York Police. It is extraordinary that the industry kept quiet.



Mishal Husain:

It doesn't mean that everyone who went to see him would have been aware of the existence of a tape like that. What I'm wondering is whether you think there has been something valuable in Me Too encouraging people to do exactly what you say you have always been able to do which is make a fuss about things like that when they happen?



Germaine Greer:


Do I think it's valuable now? I'm not sure. I thought the Golden Globe's performance where everyone wore black was amazingly stagey and contrived when you've got a real situation. The Me Too name itself comes from a movement that existed from the turn of the century in the South where I think you've got something like 700,000 agricultural workers who'd been seriously sexually assaulted and it's Tarana Burke who invented the name which she then found taken and used for showbiz. There is an aspect of the whole performance which is ballyhoo and Hollywood. The whole thing about it, the whole extraordinary exposure to so many in the case of Weinstein is 84 complainants who had opportunities to speak out some of whom have been paid six figure sums in the form of non-disclosure agreements. That's a dishonourable thing to accept, and it's not something you should boast about. It also happens to be legally binding.



Mishal Husain:

But Me Too is much broader, isn't it, than those 84 accusers of one particular man. It's about women all over the world feeling that they can say things which were previously ignored or for which there were serious repercussions and it has helped them articulate and be listened to.



Germaine Greer:

Well, I hope that's the case if indeed it is. I'm not sure because what's happened in the case of Weinstein's assistant Zelda Perkins is that she was put through absolute hell when she tried to get some sort of redress, her whole life was taken over, I mean, the amount of legal muscle that will be used to defend these people is massive, and I am concerned for damage limitation rather than maximisation, rather than wrecking people's lives, so they become career rapees, as it were. We have cases which concern rather more, I might say, of what's been happening on American campuses in the last few years and now we have had the Dear Colleague Letter that made it mandatory for universities to investigate complaints of sexual abuse that has been rescinded for the very good reason that it didn't work. None of the things we are doing actually work to protect women from abuse.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/20790/betsy-devos-correct-rescind-dear-colleague-letter-elliott-hamilton

Mishal Husain:

So what are you saying will work then, what are you advocating?



Germaine Greer:


[Sardonic laugh] That's a good question. Well, I'm actually interested in what's going on, I mean, I'm interested in the fact that Sweden, for example, has a much wider spectrum on sexual abuse than the rest of Europe, but the result is that Sweden has three times the number of rape cases of any country in Europe, of 35 countries in Europe. [Reminder: the sluttier the women, the higher the number of rape complaints. We all know how infamously promiscuous Scandinavian women are too, do we not?]



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-and-denmark-have-highest-number-of-sexual-assaults-in-europe-a6800901.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-crimes-anonymity

Mishal Husain:

Are you saying that's a good thing or a bad thing?



Germaine Greer:

Well, it's not over. We haven't got to a conclusion. We are going to have to examine the whole category of sexual abuse and we are going to have to understand what the relative gravity of these offences is, I mean, what they did on campuses in America was lighten the degree of proof that had to be alleged [Germaine Greer means lower the standard of proof] so it became "the preponderance of evidence by 51%". I don't think you can do that. You can't undermine civil liberties in order to get some sort of a conviction. It won't have any effect on the figures.



Mishal Husain:

When you said recently that "My feeling is that we should ditch rape altogether as a crime because it is hopeless," did you mean that?


Germaine Greer:

Well, I didn't mean we should make sexual assault legal. The actual crime of rape itself is a medieval survival and it deals with the stealing of a woman from her menfolk. Well, we don't even accept that concept now so now it turns on consent and that means you've got a narrative from the woman, a narrative from the man, and you've got to believe one or the other. Can you put someone away for seven years, or more, depending? The penalties for rape are huge when callous and indifferent treatment of women that is very damaging to their self-esteem is practically universal and certainly diurnal as it happens to all kinds of relationships.



Mishal Husain:

I'm still not sure what you are actually advocating as rape exists as a crime all over the world and there is a process of evidence that is undertaken in order to establish the principle of consent. What is wrong with that?



Germaine Greer:

What's wrong with it is that it doesn't work. We work out very few cases in England out of the total number of rape reports ...



Mishal Husain:


Convictions, you mean.



Germaine Greer:

... a tiny percentage of them. No, no, I mean they don't even get to court, but also rape doesn't occur in the context of court and prison - it's a part of every day life - and we have to understand the way that it works within heterosexual relationships.



Mishal Husain:

[Audibly sighing with relief at the end of this interview that she no longer has to unpick what Germaine Geeer is trying to say for the benefit of listeners or ask "How does rape work within heterosexual relationships?"] Germaine Greer, thank you very much.




MY PROPOSALS ON HOW TO CONDUCT RAPE TRIALS AND WHAT PUNISHMENT TO METe OUT TO WOMEN MAKE MALICIOUS AND FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS




How extremes meet: what Roosh the PUA proposes resembles khalwa ie sharia law

Potential money-making scheme for slags participating in gangbangs at the expense of the UK taxpayer

The BNP, Jim Dowson, Shelley Rose and Khalwat

How to solve the problem of rape complaints

How to deal with false rape allegations

A suggested new way of conducting rape trials under feminazi DPP's new rule that accused must prove complainant consented

Men: every time you shag a neurotic drunken malicious slut who claims she can't remember why she had sex with you, you may cost the taxpayer £11,000

What to do with women convicted of making false rape accusations

Is the average juror getting stupider and stupider even as the rules that make a fair trial more likely are done away with by PC libtards and feminists?

Possession is nine points of the law from 1:34:00

1:34:00  I chime in. 1:37:00  The narrow and wide interpretation of racism 1:40:00  It is racist to say black people are good at sport and d...