Sunday, 21 August 2016

Come mow my lawn, Shlomo!
This news item from a few years back shows the utter insouciance of the Mohammedan masses toward the criminal nature of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood menace.  
Paramus man sues NYPD over Muslim surveillance records [video], by Hannan Adely, Staff Writer, The Bergen County Record, November 27, 2013
New York City – Troubled by news reports of secret police surveillance, Samir Hashmi requested records a year ago he believes police have on him and on the Muslim Student Association at Rutgers University, where he was treasurer.

Smear Hashmi: "I just would like those records expunged," said Hashmi, 25. "I really would like to see what activity I did that caused them to be so suspicious.”
Dear Smear, the Muslim Students’ Association has been tightly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood for over thirty years. Evidence: Introductory memorandum, the MB signed confession to its repulsive goals. The Muslim Brotherhood is the source of most of the Arab world’s Islamic terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Ham-Ass.   
Smear Hashmi: I've only been an active Muslim ...”
Dear Smear, if “being an active Muslim” involves joining an MB front organization, then “being an active Muslim” means being a sympathizer of Mohammedan totalitarianism. That is far more than sufficient reason to watch you very closely indeed. Mohammedan totalitarianism is a very grave danger to humankind at this stage of history.
Smear Hashmi: “ ...  and I've never advocated violence at any time
Dear Smear, so what?
Smear Hashmi: “I want peace of mind.”
Dear Smear, you won’t get peace of mind by recreating in your current location the Mohammedan hellhole (i.e. the Gangstapimp Republic of Porkistan) that your parents managed to escape.
Hashmi, a bookkeeper who graduated from college in 2011, said he joined the Muslim Student Association to help his community and show a positive side of Islam after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He also has been involved as a youth leader at the Islamic Center of Passaic County in Paterson ...
Dear Smear, the Passaic County Gangstapimp Center in Paterson, New Joisy, is a notorious hotbed of Ham-Ass agitation. It is the absolute epicenter of Palestinian subversion on the American continent. If you were a “youth leader” at that pestilential dive, you are evidently a dangerous fanatic.
... which was monitored by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes New Jersey and New York police and the FBI. Hashmi was born and raised in New Jersey and his parents are from Pakistan, he said.
In October 2011, the Associated Press broke news that the NYPD had watched Muslim students at 16 colleges across the Northeast by monitoring websites and emails and using undercover officers and informants to pose as students. The police actions were part of a wider program of surveillance at Muslim houses of worship, businesses and schools that stretched into New Jersey, including Muslim neighborhoods of Paterson and Newark.
Those camel-drivers are right. The NYPD has no business snooping on the Ham-Ass sympathizers at the Passaic County Gangstapimp Center

Come mow my lawn, Shlomo! 

Monday, 15 August 2016

Pamela Geller converts to Gangstapimp

Pamela Geller converts to Gangstapimp

With photos to prove it!! 

Finally, one of Squallah’s most rebellious children has returned to the fold. Following Pamela Geller’s engagement to Sheikh Funky Baloney, a Mohammedan Horse-Shit Grand Master and spiritual leader of the Funky Armpit School of camel-driver apologetics, she has assumed strict hijabbery, as we can see in the daguerrotypes. 

Pamela Geller with Sheikh Funky Baloney

Pakistani Islamist murders Mohammedan witch doctor

Imam Maulama Akonjee and his assistant Thara Uddin were murdered on 14 August in New York City. Police say a gunman approached the men from behind and shot them in the head. No reports of anyone yelling “Allahu akbar!”. The incident happened near the Al-Furqan Jame Masjid in Ozone Park in Queens, New York City. Maulama Akonjee, a married father of three, moved to Queens from Bangladesh two years ago.  
Judging by the time of his arrival, it would seem that Akonjee was a member or sympathizer of the fanatical Jamaat-e-Islami party that was then being repressed by the secular Awami League government. Many islamists fled Bangladesh at that time and since then, and a number have been accepted as political refugees in the USA, where they no doubt will contribute to the islamization of the country.
Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in Lahore, British India, in 1941 by the Islamo-Fascist crackpot Abul Ala Maududi. It played a distinguished role in the Bangladesh genocide of 1971. Numerous Muslims are persuaded that they alone have the right to perpetrate genocide and its ilk. 
Parishioner holds sketches of gunman

Despite the predictable Mohammedan hysteria about Western islamophobes persecuting poor innocent Muslims, the hitman looked like a Pakistani islamist, not a likely Trump voter by a long shot. The only similar case I have heard of happened in Belgium a few years ago, when a Shia imam was murdered by a Sunni fanatic.
However the modus operandi looks more like a murder for hire than a religious killing. 

Tuesday, 9 August 2016

Historic Switch in Presidential Plumbing Impends

Since we know that Hillary has pledged allegiance to Goldman Sachs and is in bed with Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Pentagon, and numerous other geopolitical heavyweights -- all at the same time -- we have no reason to fear any undue influences acting on the seemingly predestined leader of the Untrammeled World.
Despite the innovative layout of her genito-urinary tract, which has no precedent in the Oval Office (Ovarian Office?), she promises continuity, in other words same old rip-off capitalism, with a few paternalistic (excuse me, maternalistic) perks to keep the masses dazed.
Unfortunately her game plan entails prolonged and obsequious kowtowing in the direction of the GangstaSpace and its myrmidons who infest the West.  
For the foreseeable future the right wing will have a lock on counter-jihad politics. Geert Wilders, the great hope for an enlightened counter-jihad, now claims to disbelieve in global warming and recently attended the national convention of the French Front National, a veritable stomping ground of competing reactionary traditions, from monarchists to racists, anti-semites and clerical fascists. Critics of islam who are guided by the humanist values of the Enlightenment cannot possibly make common cause with such people. The Front National has even sprouted a neoliberal current, thus losing its sole endearing trait, namely an antiquated statism that reflected its nationalism.
An anti-islam party, the AfD, has grown swiftly in Germany and is now represented in  several  regional legislatures. It consists largely of conservatives who won’t vote for Angela Merkel’s party, the CDU, any more, due to her concessions to Islam and to Muslim immigration. The AfD has become the first sizable party in Europe to make opposition to Islam the main plank of its platform, and it pulls no punches. The Afd dispenses entirely with the ceremonial restraint that politicians traditionally display when discussing islam. Without going to the questionable extreme of denying that islam is a religion, the AfD stresses islam’s purely political dimensions and correctly designates islam as unconstitutional, since sharia law is incompatible with several constitutional guarantees. Unfortunately there is some overlap with Fascistoid ideology, although no actual storm troopers have surfaced yet.    

The left, for its part, shows little sign of emerging from its ethnological fixation on rustic zealots as the embodiment of third-world emancipation. The radicaler the better. But even the left has had to adjust. I recently watched a documentary by Germany’s Left party denouncing Mohammedan hooligans. No ethnic or religious terms were used in the film, but the convicted Muslim gang members and  their defiant families were shown cursing in heavily accented German. 

Friday, 22 July 2016

Ridiculous camel-driver costume

Comment on: “Kelvin MacKenzie's hijab remarks in Sun spark 1,400 complaints”, BBC 19 July 2016
Refuting Mohammedan horse-shit is like strangling a giraffe
You don't know where to start
Britain´s Channel 4 News assigned a journalist wearing Mohammedan costume to report on the Islamic terrorist atrocity in Nice, France.
Writing in the Sun on Monday, MacKenzie said: “With all the major terrorist outrages in the world currently being carried out by Muslims, I think the rest of us are reasonably entitled to have concerns about what is beating in their religious hearts. Who is in the studio representing our fears? Nobody.”
Manji accused MacKenzie of trying to “intimidate Muslims out of public life” and Channel 4 News described his comments as “offensive, completely unacceptable, and arguably tantamount to inciting religious and even racial hatred”.
Talking head Fatima Manji wearing her camel-driver costume

The “racial hatred” charge unmasks this whole performance as surrealist nonsense reminiscent of the late Salvador Dalí. Racism against Mohammedans is like sexism against penguins.
MacKenzie said nothing about Manji’s race or lack of same, he wrote about her ridiculous camel-driver costume. Why do Mohammedans insist on stuffing their primitive superstitions down our throats on nation-wide TV broadcasts?  
To assign a woman wearing Mohammedan headdress to report news on Mohammedan atrocities is at the very least grossly insensitive, if not actually a deliberate provocation on the part of Channel 4.
MacKenzie blamed Channel 4, not Manji.
He principally blamed Channel 4 for being insensitive to the public’s feelings.
Is associating headscarves with Islamic terrorism bigotry?
Two (2) of the most prominent traits of fundamentalist Islam as it presently exists all over the entire planet are:
1. Islamic terrorism, and
2. wearing headscarves

Both behavior patterns became fashionable

1.      at the same time (1980s),
2.     among the same kind of people (conservative Muslims)
3.     who were influenced by the same authors (Maududi and Syed Qutb).

It is an undisputed historical fact that these two behaviour patterns are at least loosely linked.  Consequently associating these two behaviour patterns with each other is a sign of pragmatism, not of bigotry. Therefore there should be nothing wrong in saying so, even if the remark was published by the gutter press.
Perhaps instead of constantly looking for pretexts to be offended, Muslims should look critically at their own religion and distinguish those Islamic traditions that are ripe for the rubbish heap.
Islamophobia is the mirror image of Muslim reluctance to face uncomfortable facts.
Consider a different trope that is assiduously cultivated by islamophiliacs and has become an unquestionable article of faith for many people, yet has much less historical justification than associating Islamic terrorism with headscarves:
The islam lobby never tires of associating hostility to islam on the one hand with neoconservative military adventures in the Middle East on the other.
For years a steady drumbeat of islamophiliac propaganda has sought to weld opposition to islam indissolubly to support for Western imperialism.
However this association is only about 10 years old.
The initial manifesto of Stop the War Campaign in the UK in September 2001 rightly denounced US imperialist designs on Iraq. But there was no mention at all of any hostility toward islam. That idea came later.  
I grant that there is some overlap between those who criticize islam and those who encourage imperialist war. Prominent examples are Sam Harris and Bill Maher [see 20 of the Dumbest, Most Bigoted Things Bill Maher Has Ever Said, by Adam Johnson, Michael Arria, AlterNet, March 7, 2016]
But such overlap is neither universal nor logically compelling. For my part I do not think that on the whole US wars in or against Mohammedan countries are a suitable means of opposing islam, although perhaps in certain cases such wars can be justified on those grounds.  
Western aggression against Iraq was not in the least characterized by hostility to islam, at least overtly. No mosques were shut down, no hate preachers were imprisoned, performing Mohammedan rituals was not discouraged.
By contrast those who associate Islamic terrorism with headscarves can refer to a long historical tradition that links both behavior patterns, although perhaps somewhat loosely.
What justification did Kelvin MacKenzie have for calling hijab “a sign of the slavery of Muslim women by a male-dominated and clearly violent religion?"
Well, consider this recent news report from the BBC:
Pakistan burned teacher's death was 'not suicide', investigation says, 
BBC 21 July 20016
“Maria Sadaqat's family say she was attacked and set on fire at her home in Murree after turning down a suitor” and that “the attackers had wanted revenge because she had rejected a marriage proposal from the school owner's son, because he was already married with a child.”
“Ms Sadaqat gave statements to the police in hospital, naming several men as her attackers, before she died on 1 June. Police initially arrested four men, including the owner of a school where Ms Sadaqat taught not far from the capital Islamabad.”
But the police then released the suspects and claimed that Ms. Sadaqat had committed suicide. This is a typical example of the impunity of honor killers in Pakistan.
So what is the attitude of Pakistani islamists to violence against women?
The same BBC article clears up any doubts on this issue:
In February 2016 Punjab province passed a law criminalising violence against women, but all the mainstream Islamic political parties threatened to launch protests if the law was not repealed.
In other words, Kelvin MacKenzie writes bluntly, but his statement seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of the facts. 
Skinheads & Sikhs
Suppose Nazi skinhead terrorists had committed the massacre in Nice. And then suppose that instead of assigning Fatima Manji to report on the atrocity, Channel 4 News had assigned an employee with a shaven head.
Or suppose it had been a Sikh terrorist attack [Sikhs have been known to commit terrorist attacks against India], and a Sikh journalist had appeared on Channel 4 News wearing the traditional Sikh turban.
Would that not have been at the very least in questionable taste?
Suppose someone had objected to a skinhead reporting on a neo-Nazi atrocity, or that someone had objected to a Sikh reporting on an atrocity committed by Sikhs.  
Suppose the skinhead or Sikh journalist had replied thusly:
"[He] has attempted to smear 1.6 million skinheads [or 27 million Sikhs] in suggesting they are inherently violent. ... And he has attempted to smear me by suggesting I would sympathise with a terrorist.”
Such indignation would be patently phony and hypocritical.
Which is a fair description of islam as a whole. 

Digging deeper into hijabbery
Manji accused MacKenzie of wanting to “intimidate Muslims out of public life”. She seems to be implying that she cannot appear in public without wearing Mohammedan headdress. How come?  Why is she compelled to wear it every time she leaves her home? Is it glued on? This behavior seems somewhat obsessive-compulsive. Surely she can make an exception one single time, for example when she's reporting on an Islamic atrocity?
But there's another thing: why do they wear it at all? According to a random page I found on the internet, Qur’an 33:59 says,
“This [i.e. hijab] is more appropriate so that they may be known [as Muslim women] and thus not be harassed [or molested].”
Men, whether they confess it or not, are slaves of lust and desire.
• Hijab protects women from such men; it symbolizes that she has been sanctified to one man only and is off-limit to all others.
• Hijab contributes to the stability and preservation of marriage and family by eliminating the chances of extramarital affairs.
These grounds may be valid in Mohammedan countries, but not in West European ones. So by wearing hijab in England they are implying that the social relations in the Middle East are reproduced everywhere Muslims go. Cultural imperialism?
Moreover, Manji wears a large and shapeless headscarf of a depressingly drab shade. Why not something a little more fashionable, less ominous, less Dickensian, less Biblical?
Why not wear Western-style headgear, which covers hair just as well? Check out these nifty models, most of which can be arranged to cover all of a woman's hair:

Since I have never seen Muslim women wearing Western-style headgear to cover their hair, I rapidly get the impression that they’re not really trying to cover their hair at all. Instead they’re making a fashion statement. A Middle Eastern fashion statement. They are wearing traditional clothes because they want to be clearly recognizable as Muslims.  
Identity politics.
So behind those noble claims, it seems that the camel-driver costume actually IS what MacKenzie said: a poke in the eye for Westerners.    

Note: Although in this instance I happen to agree with the Sun, I read that shady periodical with the same scepticism that I devote to reading the Holy Qur’an, for example. In particular I utterly condemn the Sun’s front-page story on 23rd November 2015, which allaeges  “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”
and I fully agree with the Guardian’s devastating criticism of that shameless libel that appeared on the following day, entitled “The Guardian view on the media after Paris: from fear to loathing, by way of made-up facts”.

Specifically, the term “sympathy for” someone covers a broad range of meanings and need not entail political support. I defend criticism of Muslims and Islam (and of everyone else, of course) when it is warranted by a careful study of verified facts. Criticism based on lies, rumors or conjecture is unacceptable and must be condemned out of hand. I recognize that not all criticism of Muslims is warranted, and that this subject matter lends itself to misunderstandings.