I have always said it was a distinction without a difference.
The only reason we should consider is which is more effective, but they are the same.
The enemies of feminism and liberal democracy are perceived to be Islam. The former represents the matriarchy and the latter the patriarchy.
Does it matter to your victims if you kill them for political or religious reasons?
Does it matter that your victims take revenge on you for political or religious reasons, by murdering you and your children?
If it does, what is the difference between being murdered for political reasons and being murdered for religious reasons, in practice and in theory?
If God is an instrument of government, isn't He more effective for this purpose than effeminate liberalism and immoral feminism, ignorant and indifferent to economic and foreign policy, interested only in choosing which bribe to accept at General Elections, eager to believe that it is both possible to have higher government spending and lower taxes and that uncontrolled immigration is good for the economy and should long continue?
The Iranians in their one party theocracy at least had a choice in the kind of foreign policy their country pursues and whether they wanted the hardline Raisi or the moderate Rouhani to pursue it. The Iranians had a more meaningful choice in their elections than the West. In the West, no voter ever votes on foreign policy. If you even ask your MP about this, you are treated as an oddball, or even an extremist who may possibly be a terrorist, probably.
Let us face facts: we are a declining and degenerate matriarchy and we distrust and despise our leaders. There is no evil we would not suspect them of committing. The most surprising thing about the Manchester attack was not that it happened, but the people who cynically observed that Theresa May would benefit from it and win the General Election by more of a margin because of it.
The Ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang is now in play. In its Newtonian way it states that for every action there will be a reaction. We and the terrorists who want to kill us and our children are now reacting against the stinking matriarchy we now find ourselves in, wondering which way to head for the shortest way out of the swamp.
The so-called enemies of the West have rational and principled men leading their countries while the West has only incompetent female leaders and a US President the deep state wants to topple and whose wife slaps away his hand when he reaches out for it in public.
The most notable thing about the Muslim terrorists is that they are adhering to their religious principles by terrorising us until they get what they want from us. Do we have any religious or political principle for invading and destroying Muslim countries in the way the US military industrial complex deep state wants us to keep doing? The nearest thing we have is that of the neocon goal of full spectrum global dominance that it does not appear Western voters are even aware of. Presumably, this goal is hidden away from the infantilised and feminised voters of NATO member states who don't like thinking of themselves as ruthless imperialists with blood-soaked hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
Iran elections: Pro-Rouhani reformists in Tehran power sweep
Yin and Yang and Newton's Third Law
Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War
Ideology A gives up its principles in order to fight Ideology B. Which ideology has won?
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10389/europe-migration-policies
The only reason we should consider is which is more effective, but they are the same.
The enemies of feminism and liberal democracy are perceived to be Islam. The former represents the matriarchy and the latter the patriarchy.
Does it matter to your victims if you kill them for political or religious reasons?
Does it matter that your victims take revenge on you for political or religious reasons, by murdering you and your children?
If it does, what is the difference between being murdered for political reasons and being murdered for religious reasons, in practice and in theory?
If God is an instrument of government, isn't He more effective for this purpose than effeminate liberalism and immoral feminism, ignorant and indifferent to economic and foreign policy, interested only in choosing which bribe to accept at General Elections, eager to believe that it is both possible to have higher government spending and lower taxes and that uncontrolled immigration is good for the economy and should long continue?
The Iranians in their one party theocracy at least had a choice in the kind of foreign policy their country pursues and whether they wanted the hardline Raisi or the moderate Rouhani to pursue it. The Iranians had a more meaningful choice in their elections than the West. In the West, no voter ever votes on foreign policy. If you even ask your MP about this, you are treated as an oddball, or even an extremist who may possibly be a terrorist, probably.
Let us face facts: we are a declining and degenerate matriarchy and we distrust and despise our leaders. There is no evil we would not suspect them of committing. The most surprising thing about the Manchester attack was not that it happened, but the people who cynically observed that Theresa May would benefit from it and win the General Election by more of a margin because of it.
The Ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang is now in play. In its Newtonian way it states that for every action there will be a reaction. We and the terrorists who want to kill us and our children are now reacting against the stinking matriarchy we now find ourselves in, wondering which way to head for the shortest way out of the swamp.
The so-called enemies of the West have rational and principled men leading their countries while the West has only incompetent female leaders and a US President the deep state wants to topple and whose wife slaps away his hand when he reaches out for it in public.
The most notable thing about the Muslim terrorists is that they are adhering to their religious principles by terrorising us until they get what they want from us. Do we have any religious or political principle for invading and destroying Muslim countries in the way the US military industrial complex deep state wants us to keep doing? The nearest thing we have is that of the neocon goal of full spectrum global dominance that it does not appear Western voters are even aware of. Presumably, this goal is hidden away from the infantilised and feminised voters of NATO member states who don't like thinking of themselves as ruthless imperialists with blood-soaked hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
Iran elections: Pro-Rouhani reformists in Tehran power sweep
Yin and Yang and Newton's Third Law
Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War
Ideology A gives up its principles in order to fight Ideology B. Which ideology has won?
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10389/europe-migration-policies
When the G7 heads of state arrive in Taormina, Sicily, for the G7 meeting on May 26, they will find themselves in an embellished, picture-postcard version of European reality. Italy, the host of the G7 meeting, has announced that it will close all harbors on the island to ships that arrive with migrants ( mainly from Libya) for the duration of the two-day meeting. The reason for the closure of the Italian island to migrants is to protect the G7 meeting from potential terrorist attacks. According to Italian reports, "the Department of Public Safety believes that the boats with illegal immigrants could be hiding an Islamist threat".
G7 meetings are, of course, always subject to a host of high-level security measures. However, shielding heads of state from seeing the consequences of the policies that they themselves have forced on the entire European continent represents a staggering new level of hypocrisy. Literally altering reality in order to present a whitewashed picture of the influx of migrants into Europe, which happens largely through Italy, is a Potemkin measure, regardless of terror risks. Heads of state, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Italy seeks to protect from a terrorist risk, seem not to care particularly about the very real terrorist risks that European citizens are forced to live with daily thanks to the migrant policies of these heads of state.
A meme I found on Facebook
 |
| Another meme I found on Facebook |
As an analyst, I blame the political elite. As a father & grandfather I pray for the kids & their families. #manchesterexplosion— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 22, 2017
#ISIS claim responsibility for #ManchesterMassacre #BBC still saying they have no idea who did it. Pathetic #FakeNews wankers!— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
After #Islamist terror strikes #Manchester #TheresaMay announces end to aid for Islamists in #Syria Not! "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
Finally! Independent admits it: #Manchester Massacre was on 4th anniversary of murder of #LeeRigby #NeverForget— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
Gay GF of first named victim of Jihadi #ManchesterBombing had this to say. Sad that Western snowflakes have to learn the hard way https://t.co/lEHH0DzN1S— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
#StandUpToTrump I've never been more proud to be a Brit! America we are with you, the world is with you! We stand up to the Muslim ban ☪️ pic.twitter.com/adFiW7jFd5— Sophie ⚢ (@Sophie_Jauregui) January 30, 2017
I'm no Islamophile, but don't demand "Muslims should condemn ISIS" while voting for leaders who sell arms to #ISIS sponsor #SaudiArabia— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
CBS names Manchester bomber as Salman Abedi, 'known to police'. Unconfirmed, perhaps because police don't want to admit another total fuckup— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
#DonaldTrump will show his solidarity with #Manchester by selling $160Billion of weapons to #SaudiArabia , the source of ALL #Wahhabi terror— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
Hope they don't mark #Manchester with candles. It's a war zone not a feckin giant birthday cake. Reality demands action, not luvvie slogans— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) May 23, 2017
— #VoteLabour (@volkan_gunduz) May 26, 2017
