Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Wisdom of Shariacrap

By Carlos D. Jekyll

Hey, Gangstapimps, what the fuck?

Shariacrap , the law ordained by the Almighty Totem-Scrotum to govern the affairs of men, is perfectly clear on one point: Whoever curses the prophet Scrotum-Face must die!

I've been cursing Scrotum-Face for a coupla years now, and I haven’t heard a peep outa you guys. Whazzammattah, lost your mojo?

Come on, give it a try! Don't be such a bunch of chicken-shit camel-drivers!

I warn you I'm armed to the teeth and my digs are booby-trapped, but that shouldn't scare you guys off. What the hell, if I blow your heads off you get a one-way ticket to Paradise, where you can screw the pìss out of eleventy-two virgins at the same time! What more could a devout Gangstapimp wish for?

Or at least that’s the Scrotumfacial say-so, straight from the horse’s ass! You know, in those phony scribbles of yours, whaddya call’em? Holy Cow-Ran, or something like that? That’s funny, I thought it was the Hindus that were on a holy-cow trip! I guess you guys lifted the idea from the Hindus, eh? Sneaky bastards, most likely you swiped your entire chimpanzee propaganda routine from other religions!

Same as you swiped the Protocols of the Elders of Zion from the Imperial Russian Secret Police! That’s Volume Two of the ICMH now, I guess.[1] I notice when your sages cite The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they never explain where those so-called Protocols came from. Same as when they cite the Cow-Ran book. I guess that means that both of them are phony like hell, right?

When I say “sages” I mean pathological liars like Sayyid Qutb. What a goddam lying pimp that bastard was! I suppose that’s why he‘s so popular in the Gangstapimp world.

I have a suggestion. You have Volume One, which is the Holy Cow-Ran. You swiped Volume Two from the Russian secret police. Howzabout swiping Volume Three to round the first two off? Perhaps the Collected Adventures of Donald Duck, that would be about your speed. Suitably feeble-minded, to keep you slack-jawed yokels happy, eh? Those three volumes, suitably bound, would look seriously impressive sitting on your rabbit-hutch. Make you out to be pious, serious-minded folk who wouldn't hesitate an instant to strangle your own daughters is they showed too much ankle to the neighbor’s kid.

Anyhoo, if I were you I wouldn't sit back and take all this blasphemous vituperation from a kaffir like me! That’s a slippery slope, you know. If the other kaffirs get wise, pretty soon nobody’s going to show due respect for your off-the-wall chimpanzee propaganda any more. Things could get serious.

Respect is a big deal for people with a chimpanzee mindset like you Gangstapimps. You don't give a tinker’s damn about facts, no sirree! Respect is the big enchilada for you zombies. Social status, the key to mental equilibrium, the only thing that keeps you on an even keel.

 Hey, wait a moment, didn't you swipe that idea from Dianetics? You know, the Scientology crowd? Seems to me …

(to be continued)

[1] ICMH means the Interminable Compendium of Mohammedan Horse-Shit.

Monday, 29 April 2013

Is the Whoma a Tumor?

Slaughterfaith’s New Section
Devoted to the Muses

Is the Whoma a Tumor?
An Epic Poem in 2 Procedures
By Abu Somebody

Author's note: Just in order to ward off any misunderstanding, “Whoma” actually means “Ummah”. I know nothing about Huma Abedin, so I wouldn’t presume to write about her. 

Islam differs from other cults
Both in its assumptions and its results.  
'Cause depending on the situation   
it is a peculiar combination  
of religion
and/or  government
and/or  source of law
and/or  pressure group
and/or nation
and/or race.
Which makes it confusing, in other words
It's not well differentiated.

Now, cancer cells’ growth rate is related
to not being well differentiated.[1]

Furthermore I heard a rumor
(could be gallows humor)
from a baby boomer
that  the Whoma is a tumor.

You know, a carcinoma,
like a lymphadenoma,
or a melanoma,
or a papilloma, mesothelioma or neuroblastoma.

‘Cause among other catastrophes
it undergoes metastasis
and those who swear the oath
show massive growth

So perhaps this rumor
that  the Whoma is a tumor
is spot-on.


 This procedure is still in the planning stage.

[1] The breast cancer grade is assessed by comparison of the breast cancer cells to normal breast cells. The closer to normal the cancer cells are, the slower their growth and the better the prognosis. If cells are not well differentiated, they will appear immature, will divide more rapidly, and will tend to spread. Well differentiated is given a grade of 1, moderate is grade 2, while poor or undifferentiated is given a higher grade of 3 or 4 (depending upon the scale used). The most widely used grading system is the Nottingham scheme;[93] details are provided in the discussion of breast cancer grade.
Wikipedia, Breast Cancer

Thursday, 25 April 2013


Letter to Chris Hedges on The Persecution of Lynne Stewart

By Mack the Naïf

I fully agree that Lynn Stewart should not be blamed or punished for defending someone charged with a crime. That’s a lawyer’s job.

However, LONG AFTER THE BLIND SHEIKH HAD BEEN CONVICTED, and hence no defense was any longer possible, she broke the law and lawyers’ ethical code by assisting the blind sheikh in communicating with his accomplices in Egypt. This is especially outrageous because by doing so she became a willing, nay, eager, tool of an international network of savagery and oppression that is every bit as odious and contemptible as US imperialism, if not more so.

Without even stopping to think, Stewart became part of the propaganda apparatus of a terrorist gang that had committed many and grave crimes with the purpose of imposing a quasi-Fascist tyranny on the Egyptian people. One of the blind sheikh’s most outrageous crimes, which you of course do not even mention, is that in 1992 he almost certainly issued the fatwa condemning to death Farag Foda, an Egyptian publicist who had devoted his life to assisting Egyptians oppressed by mediaeval Islamic superstitions. See the Wikipedia article on Farag Foda.

For example, the ten million Egyptian Christians, the Copts, who have for centuries groaned under the jackboot of Islamic persecution. Farag Foda spent his life struggling for the freedom of non-Muslims from Fascist thugs like the blind sheikh, whose life project is to plunge Egypt, the Middle East and the entire planet into a nightmare of 7th-century Arabian savagery as exemplified by the blood-stained career of the so-called “prophet” Mohammed, who killed more people than Al Capone and Billy the Kid put together.

In June 1992 Farag Foda was gunned down by Mohammedan fanatics on orders from the blind sheikh and/or his Islamofascist cronies.

Stewart didn't even bother to research the blind sheikh’s horrendous crimes. She sympathized with him, because as you put it in your inimitably hypocritical bleeding-heart phony-liberal way, she considered an Islamo-fascist dirt-bag like the sheikh “the poor, the marginalized and the despised” “for whom justice was usually denied”. You nonsensically claim that after the sheikh was convicted for blowing up the World Trade Center in 1993 – one year after he had ordered Farag Foda murdered -- “cases such as the Sheikh’s in 1995 amply demonstrate that Muslims had been targeted even earlier as the new ENEMY”.

You write “I was based in Cairo at the time as the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times”. And you never heard of Farag Foda’s murder in 1992 by islamist thugs on orders from the blind sheikh? You only mention that the blind sheikh denounced the 1995 killings in Luxor by Muslim fanatics. However by that time he was safely locked up in an American prison cell, and denouncing the Luxor murders was probably merely a public relations stunt to earn the American public’s sympathy. While he was at large he had never denounced any Islamist crimes.

You remind me of another New York Times bureau chief -- Walter Duranty, who as Moscow bureau chief kept quiet about the Ukrainian genocide of 1933-34 committed by Stalin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Many millions of Ukrainian peasants starved to death after their harvests were confiscated by the NKVD and they were forcibly prevented from migrating elsewhere to find food. Perhaps Duranty didn't think the news was fit to print.

Farag Foda, human rights activist
murdered by the fanatical Blind Sheikh

I conjecture that, since the Egyptian Copts might at some point become allies of Israel, you decided it was best to preemptively keep mum about the persecution to which the Copts are subjected by the Muslim fanatics whom you seem to hold in such high esteem. That way you adroitly prevented Israel from gaining any advance foothold in public opinion. A shrewd gambit, comrade!

And just in case, you decided also to keep mum about people defending the Copts from oppression, like Farag Foda, who although an atheist, might at any moment become Israel’s trump card! A master stroke!

How else can you explain such a dramatic contrast:
On the one hand the exquisite sympathy with which you chronicle the sufferings of Palestinians and of Israelis who protest against the Palestinians’ oppression by Israel;
On the other hand, anyone who is a target of Islamist savagery instantly becomes a non-person whose existence is not even hinted at.

I intend to nominate you for the Dr. Joseph Goebbels Prize for Journalistic Objectivity.

Omar Abdel-Rahman, terror boss
with a doctorate in Islamic theology

Sunday, 14 April 2013


by our legal correspondent Oliver Sherlock Holmes
A collection of quotations, all whining in unison that shariacrap is indefinably fuzzy, and therefore above criticism.

1.  Shariah law — which in any case is not an established legal code, as the book title implies, but a fluid concept subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications.”

Robert Steinback of SPLC, 10 Most Dangerous Hatemongers

2.  " … anti-Muslim activists rarely understand that Sharia is interpreted and reinterpreted in numerous ways throughout Muslim communities and primarily guides individual religious observance.”

  from The Right Wing Playbook on Anti  Muslim Extremism

“Sharia is not a collection of laws but a set of diversely interpreted guidelines for religious practice.”

Center for American Progress. Announcement for sharia symposium of 26 July 2011

4.      “Proponents of this legislation [i.e. anti-shariacrap legislation] tend to focus on manifestations of Sharia overseas: the stoning of adulterers, cutting off of the hands of thieves, and the denial of basic freedoms for women in some Islamic countries,” … “there are many schools of interpretation among Islamic legal scholars, and some interpretations stand in tension with the rights that we have come to take for granted in liberal democracies, including the rights of women, homosexual persons, religious minorities, and religious converts.”            (my stress)

Law professor Robert K. Vischer, published in First Things, quoted by Robert Spencer in: Florida and Oklahoma Vote for Freedom Jihad Watch 2013-04-13

Oliver Sherlock Holmes remarks:
Note that Vischer seems to imply that shariacrap in the US would be something UTTERLY DIFFERENT from shariacrap overseas”. In other words there is some kind of “all-American shariacrap” in the making, to which none of the objections cited would apply..
NOBODY has ever claimed or pretended that shariacrap in the US would be ANY DIFFERENT from shariacrap elsewhere!

Robert Spencer effortlessly unmasks these writers as mealy-mouthed propagandists for shariacrap. Spencer writes,

“In reality, however, there is no school of Islamic jurisprudence among either Sunnis or Shi’tes that does not mandate stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, and the subjugation of women. Stoning adulterers is in accord with the words and example of Muhammad, whom the Qur’an holds up as the supreme example of conduct for believers (33:21); amputation of the hand for theft is mandated in the Qur’an itself (5:38); and the oppression of women in numerous ways is amply attested by the words of both the Qur’an and the prophet of Islam. Opponents of anti-Sharia laws have no basis for their assumption that no Muslims will ever try to bring such laws here. While there are individual Islamic legal scholars who have crafted interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah that are more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy than is Sharia in its classic formulations, these have never gained any significant traction among Muslims. Wherever Sharia has been the law of the land, throughout Islamic history and in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other areas of the Islamic world today, it has had largely the same character – one that has never resembled liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Sharia polities throughout history and today have denied the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and mandated discrimination against women and non-Muslims.... “

Robert Spencer: Florida and Oklahoma Vote for Freedom Jihad Watch 2013-04-13

Friday, 5 April 2013

Latent Islamophobia Detection

Latent Islamophobia Detection Survey
Commissioned by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

Recent scholarly breakthroughs in the clinical field of Early Islamophobia Detection have led to new stress on the crucial importance of rapid detection and prompt treatment of all cases of  that perennial scourge of mankind, Islamophobia. Latent Islamophobia – a hitherto neglected parameter of aggregate Islamophobic virulence -- has been identified as an especially serious threat, especially in middle-aged male Caucasian pit bull owners with less than completed secondary school educational attainment.

Consequently the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has commissioned Slaughterfaith with the design and application of a new survey intended to detect the first signs of latent Islamophobia. We therefore appeal to our  notoriously equanimous and evenhanded readership to take this pilot version of the LATENT ISLAMOPHOBIA DETECTION SURVEY™ and send in the results as soon as possible.

Slaughterfaith staff is standing by even as we speak, eager to evaluate the results and forward them to the Latent Islamophobia Detection Task Force working round the clock in shifts at OIC headquarters in Jeddah under the able direction of Ghowt Faqir, PhD, whose meteoric career in the emerging clinical field of Latent Islamophobia Detection has enthralled Muslim youth throughout the Islamic world and in parts of Northern Waziristan.  

1. Islam is a festering swamp of nauseating malarkey cooked up by a bunch of degenerate savages suffering from terminal penis inferiority complexes. 




2. The so-called “prophet” Muhammad ibn Porkchops  was a cranky old fart who didn't know his rear end from a hole in the wall. His lifelong goal was to corner the opium market on the Arabian Peninsula, but he was continually distracted from it by his habit of browsing through his immense collection of vintage suspenders (braces).




3.  Contrary to popular belief, islam isn't really a death cult, but merely a form of gangster-worship. 




4.  Islam is the most highly developed form of barbarism.




5.  Camel-driver cults suck big time.




6.  If the Holy Qur’ân is art, then Muhammad was a bullshit artist.   




Wednesday, 3 April 2013

Islamophobia in Denmark

by Igor Slamoff

A review of Islamophobia in the Media, by Bashy Quraishy, Tomas Deltombe and Michael Privot. Speeches given at a meeting in Brussels in 2006 organised by the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations.

•             Bashy Quraishy: President of ENAR (European Network Against Racism) - Belgium; Chief Editor of Media Watch; Member Board of Trustees of More colour in the media - Holland; Member Board of Trustees of Centro de Estudos Multiculturais - Portugal
•             Michael Privot: Islamologist; vice president of FEMYSO (Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations)
•             Thomas Deltombe: Journalist, diploma at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris and DEA in contemporary history ; author of L'islam imaginaire : La construction médiatique de l'islamophobie en France, 1975-2005 (2005), Editions La Découverte.

Quraishy wrote the lead article, called Media’s role in cementing Islamophobia. His thesis is that “… the greatest challenge facing us [i.e. Mohammedans in Europe] is the biased media coverage.”

Perhaps he is right. However, his article betrays some seriously muddled thinking:

“High unemployment, societal marginalisation, concentration in socially deprived areas, lack of a dialogue and rise in Islamophobia are the net results of this one-sided media coverage.”

The claim that the media often encourage bias against Islam is a familiar one and in certain cases is undoubtedly accurate. But this is the first time I have read anyone blame media bias for Moslems’ unemployment and their living in overcrowded European slums.

Nonetheless, NOT everything Quraishy writes is nonsense, and he backs his claims up with hair-raising quotes from Danish and other media that leave us in no doubt that a substantial portion of the ill-will against Mohammedans in the West is actually simply old-fashioned prejudice and not alarm at the homicidal teachings and practice of Islam’s founder.

However the opinion poll figures that Quraishy quotes clearly show that the homicidal teachings outweigh simple prejudice by a considerable margin.

When Quraishy deplores “erosion of civil liberty due to excessive linking of terrorism and Islam” he is admitting that Mohammedan terrorism is at the root of much ill-will. He quotes a Turkish diplomat who deplores the Madrid bombings of April 2004 that killed about 200 Spaniards: “In the post-Madrid stage, I regretfully notice a repeated tendency to equate violence and terrorism with a religion, namely Islam, especially in the mass media. Terms such as “Islamic terrorism” is unfortunately abundant”.

Please note that what this Turkish Islamo-zombie deplores is NOT THAT IT KILLED 200 HUMAN BEINGS, BUT INSTEAD THE LOUSY PUBLICITY that the slaughter generated for Islam, the religion of its perpetrators. .

Quraishy himself carefully avoids associating Islam with terrorism in the following passage: " … resentment, as well as harassment and attacks on Muslims in the EU, have increased significantly after terrorists hit the US on 11 September 2001.” Note he writes just plain “terrorists”, not “Islamic terrorists”. But to the extent that they committed their crimes in Islam’s name, it is perfectly justified to call them “Islamic terrorists”. Especially since Islamic traditions and scripture furnish ample theological arguments for their crimes.

I wonder what would happen if Southern Baptists were suddenly to start killing hundreds of people with bombs and similar equipment, justifying their crimes with religious arguments. How long would it take before the media started writing about “Southern Baptist terrorism”?

The title of a report issued by a Finnish human rights group (IHF) says it all: “Intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in the EU - Developments SINCE SEPTEMBER 2001”

Quraishy rashly quotes from the text of the report, offering us such jewels as: "As the fight against terrorism has been stepped up and the perceived threat of religious extremism has become a major focus of public debate, Muslims have increasingly felt that they are stigmatised because of their beliefs".

My remark: In other words, when some Mohammedans commit crimes in Islam’s name, in the public’s mind Islam becomes associated with crime.

Quraishy laments: “In Spain and Germany the level of hostility against Muslims has increased again after the terrorist attack in Madrid, in March 2004, the report shows. In the Netherlands, hostility rose after the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh.”

My remark: Yeah, well, what the hell did you expect? How come you think that unfair?

Quraishy laments: “ … for more than 80 percent of Germans the word "Islam" is associated to´terrorism’" ...

My remark: Strangely enough, the same is true of Egyptians. I read a statement by a former member of the Egyptian terrorist group Gama’a al islamiyya, according to which he and his terrorist buddies would pretend to be Christians in order to allay the suspicions of the Egyptian police. Once the policemen saw their crucifixes, they would lose interest in them and send them on their way.

Quraishy laments: “In Denmark, Media Watch Magazine [run by Quraishy himself] has monitored media coverage since 1995. Even if Muslim communities are less than 3% of the Danish population, they figure 35% in media debate and 65% of this coverage is negative.”

The meaning of the statement "Muslim communities … figure 35% in media debate” is unclear.

As for the 65% figure, in order to prove media bias, Quraishy would have to show that the so-called “negative” coverage was unwarranted. But he provides only one or two anecdotal examples of clearly unjustified attacks on Mohammedans. For example, in 2005 a Danish TV station presented a staged “interview” with 2 Muslim boys holding guns who said they belonged to a dangerous criminal ethnic gang called Triple X and boasted about taking over Denmark by violence. It later transpired that the boys had been promised that they would be filmed for a music video.

Another case of blatant bias related by Quraishy: on a Danish talk show, a guest claimed that Mohammedans smell of urine.

I , Igor Slamoff, have personally known hundreds of Mohammedans, and I cannot recall a single one of them that smelled bad. Some of them smelled quite nifty, as a matter of fact. And most of them were thoroughly simpático as well.

I fully concur with Quraishy that these cases are clearly unwarranted “negative” coverage.

However, a few pages later, Quraishy tells us that “70% of all media coverage of Muslims in Denmark is concerned with crime, social problems, honour killings, fundamentalism, terror, forced marriages, lack of goodwill and a hatred of the Western values, democracy and human rights.”

Let us compare Quraishy’s two statements regarding media coverage of Muslims in Denmark, namely
  1. "65% … is negative”, and
  2. “70% ... is concerned with crime, social problems, honour killings, fundamentalism, terror, forced marriages, lack of goodwill and a hatred of the Western values, democracy and human rights”

This seems to imply that the coverage is largely “negative” because the coverage describes aspects of Mohammedan beliefs and behavior that are grossly antisocial. In other words, what is “negative” is not the coverage, but the Mohammedans’ behavior.


This reminds me of the phony outrage recently exhibited by Mohammedans worldwide on release of the “Innocence of Muslims” movie. There was much talk of “defaming” Mohammed. I actually made a crude statistical analysis of a large random sample of the criticisms voiced regarding the movie. I found to my befuddlement that nobody – but NOBODY! -- actually said that the portrayal of Mohammed as a lecherous psychopath was inaccurate, false or erroneous. In other words, every blessed one of them tacitly admitted that Islam’s founder was a brazen criminal. They merely objected to someone saying so out loud. Their feelings were hurt.

Finally Quraishy gets around to stating the obvious: “But spreading of Islamophobia has also been helped by Muslim groups themselves. In recent years, some imams and other prominent Muslims have … [made] comments reflecting a controversial interpretation of Islamic teachings." And he proffers the welcome advice that “… Muslim communities must distance themselves from those inside tiny forces who have their own agenda based on ignorance.”

It is regrettable that Quraishy resorts to apologetic formulations like “a controversial interpretation of Islamic teachings”. Likewise to call bloodthirsty fanatics “inside tiny forces [presumably meaning “tiny internal forces”] who have their own agenda based on ignorance” seems to deny any legitimate scriptural basis to Mohammedan terrorism.

Robert Spencer, the publisher of the Jihad Watch web site, is often disparaged for his thesis according to which Mohammedan terrorists are quite right in claiming Koranic authority for their crimes.

I am pleased by Quraishy’s denunciation of Islamic terrorism. However , I agree with Robert Spencer that only by acknowledging Islam’s undeniable terrorist roots and extirpating them wholesale from their religion will moslems ever credibly banish the specter of terrorism from their midst.

In any case Quraishy is evidently opposed to Islamic extremism, and that is a very good thing. The same cannot be said for many others who denounce islamophobia. In 2011, the ostensibly progressive organization Center for American Progress issued a shameless propaganda piece called Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network In America.

In an article, Silencing Critics of Islamic Extremism, published on David Horowitz’ right-wing Zionist FrontPage web site on August 29, 2011, Daniel Greenfield convincingly argues that Fear Inc. is not really intended to defend Moslems at all, but instead to silence critics of Islamic extremism. This is obvious the moment the authors of this smear piece, to wit undercover Moslem Brotherhood pimp Faiz Shakir and other miscreants, “do not limit their attacks to non-Muslims, but go after moderate Muslim critics of Islamic extremism as well,” such as Zuhdi Jasser, the head of the Islamic Forum for Democracy (cherished by the GOP). The CAP report states that Jasser “dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim American organizations as subversive.”

“Dangerously”, huh? Dangerous for WHOM, prithee? That adjective seems to be a favorite of islamo-windbags working the islamophobia racket. Seems to be a way of softening up their victims for the kill.

Could that be an implied threat of violence, or is it my islamophobic paranoia talking?


Thus these fearless investigative journalists have uncovered a completely unprecedented phenomenon: the Islamophobic Muslim, apparently the Mohammedan counterpart of the self-hating Jew. And why is Zuhdi Jasser Islamophobic? Because he opposes a certain “mainstream” Muslim organization. If that is the case, then that “mainstream” organization he opposes must represent the absolute culmination of Islamic perfection. What is its name, pray?

The Islamic Society of North America. Hmm. Rings a bell.

I look up this admirable mainstream organization and find that over 20 years ago, in 1991, it was identified as a front organization of the Islamofascist Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, by none other than a prominent MB apparatchik, Mohamed Akram, in an official report entitled “Strategic Goal for the Moslem Brotherhood in North América”.[1] At least, that’s what the FBI claims.

The Moslem Brotherhood spokespersons embedded in CAP [i.e. Islamo-windbag-in chief Faiz Shakir & Co.[2]] must think that all their readers are blithering idiots and will scrupulously refrain from checking any of the smarmy Fascist propaganda they excrete, thus tainting with the unmistakable stench of totalitarianism the otherwise fairly ethical output of the Center for American Progress.

The selfsame Muslim Brotherhood, by the way, is currently brutally imposing shariacrap law on Egypt. Unfortunately, there is much popular resistance and a lot of people are getting killed. Oh, well, you can't make omelets without breaking eggs, as Stalin was fond of saying.

So the real meaning of “islamophobia” turns out to be opposition, not to Islam as such, but to the Muslim Brotherhood and its myrmidons. Otherwise stated, the Monkey Boys are the true essence of Islam. Hey, wait a moment, isn’t that what Robert Spencer has been promulgating all these years to the universal dismay of the entire gamut of Islam groupies? Namely that the core of Islam is hatred, violence and oppression, such as we see in Egypt now groaning under the jackboot of Mohammedan chauvinism?

Thus the doughty Robert Spencer's thesis is once again confirmed, this time from a completely unexpected quarter, namely the sleazy purlieus of that Mother of All Scumbags, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another lying propagandist (or perhaps it's merely an Orwellian robot, since I could find no independent proof of his existence) whose voluble and hypocritical denunciations of alleged islamophobia are obviously mere pretexts in order to facilitate the establishment of Islamofascism in the West is one Brian Tashman. I shall deal with him or it at length on another occasion.


It is interesting to compare Quraishy’s statements with those of another privileged eyewitness to the plight of Mohammedans in Denmark, namely Nicolai Sennels, the Danish author of Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal? (found on Jihad Watch)

I quote from the article’s introduction:

“Nicolai Sennels (born 1976) is a psychologist, a popular lecturer about Muslim integration and gangs, and the author of Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experiences from Copenhagen Municipality (Free Press Society, 2009). This article summarizes his experiences and conclusions as a professional psychologist in the Copenhagen youth prison Sønderbro.”

In a nutshell, the conclusion that Sennels derives from his experience attending to the tender psyches of Mohammedan juvenile delinquents is that Mohammedan societies selectively encourage anger and violence as techniques for resolving conflicts. For Mohammedans, to act in a relaxed and reasonable way during a conflict situation is a sign of weakness and cowardice. For them it is important to exhibit rage and to resort to threats and actual violence in the early stages of any conflict.

According to Sennels, “Seven out of 10 inmates in Danish youth prisons ... are raised in Muslim families, Sennels writes. “The first seven or eight places on the top-10 list of criminals' nationality are occupied by immigrants from Muslim countries (Danes come in as number nine, followed by a long list of purely non-Muslim immigrants). … The crime statistics also show that crime rates among immigrants get worse, not better, in subsequent generations. Time does not heal the problems, on the contrary.”

So whom are we to believe? Quraishy or Sennels? Or some of both?

I shall leave it to the Gentile reader to figure that one out.

[2] I shall name these shameless disciples of Dr. Goebbels singly, so that their infamy outlives the mendacious disinformational sewage they busily concoct, ostensibly in the name of progress: Faiz Shakir, Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Scott Keyes and Lee Fang.