FIRST AMENDMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS AND ISLAM

Dear Earthlings,


As you must be knowing, the world is a vicious place.  Today, we will find out what makes the world so vicious.  We have five unelected members of the security council.  Out of them. at least three claim to be promoters of freedom and modern values and democracy and women's rights etc.  Now these gentlemen do not want to expand the security council and make it more representative.  Now, I do not mind that, but I do mind when they cannot agree on how to define a terrorist.


Let us take the sole superpower and understand its difficulties by taking the first amendment as an example.  It prohibits Congress from establishing a religion and Americans must be so proud of it, but does it prohibit any state from establishing Islam?  Now you may think that this is jumping the gun, but a flaw is a flaw which can be easily exploited in the times to come.  In Aceh, for example sharia has been established and how long before it spreads to the rest of Indonesia?


It gives blanket freedom for the free exercise of Islam.  No restrictions on any sects whatsoever, salafis, wahabis, tablighis, Muslim Brotherhood, or HuT.  Now, of course this amendment was made in 1791 and does not factor Islam, but conservatives are so fond of antiquated rights like the jihadis that they just do not want to change a word.  So Islam gets a free run, irrespective of the fact that everybody knows that in Islam there is no reciprocatory freedom.


Now some conservatives are fond of blaming the imaginary left for all the problems, but why should there be discrimination in matter of refugees when the constitution, glaringly and egregiously, does not discriminate?  Freedom of speech guarantees that Bush and company certify that Islam is a great and peaceful religion without batting an eyelid.  Islamophobia is hatred, not sharia, as per free speech consensus across the board.


Freedom of the press guarantees quantitative easing of the Quran without any restrictions.  2nd amendment guarantees uninfringed rights of jihadis to bear arms and form regulated militias (for the defence of free state, shucks) and these are the people who preach about new world order.  No wonder, these kind of cowboy era laws did not work in Afghanistan.  Imagine any sensible human providing a level playing field for jihadis in any society.


The UDHR which is a close cousin of the jurassic-era first amendment, in the preamble, recognizes the equality and dignity of all members of the jihadi family as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.  Article 1 makes the preposterous assumption that jihadis are endowed with reason and conscience.  2 ensures that jihadis will have all rights and freedoms.  7 ensures them equality before the law.  11 assumes they are innocent before proven guilty.


12 guarantees the protection of honor of Mohammad.  13 gives the jihadi brides right of return.  15 gives them right to nationality.  16 gives them right to polygamy.  17 gives them right to build mosques on property.  18 gives them the right to proselytize.  20 sanctions namaaz in public places.  21 gives right to participate in government and representation.  23 gives right to employment.  25 gives right to social welfare.  26 allows them to send their children to mosques and madrasas.


Now, have we found the answer to why the world is such a vicious place?  This western world view gives the enemies of humanity so much rights that nothing is left for humans and these nationalist crooks who are blaming the left are complicit in all this fake discourse in the media.  Either we carry on with this sham of a debate as usual or we realize that we have a leaky tub and plug the holes in the so called enlightened, modern, and progressive constitution.


REMINDER:  You can save the planet by understanding, educating, sharing, and donating.  Do your bit.

NATIONALISM, AMERICAN, UIGHUR AND ISLAMIC

Dear Earthlings,


Sponsored by mass media manipulation, the season of nationalism is in full swing in Europe and America.  Trump was the biggest harvester of nationalism and many others are following in his wake.  Today, we will try to understand what this highfalutin nationalism means.  In the Trump thesaurus, nationalism means MAGA.  Judging by American GDP at least, it is difficult to understand what exactly Trump means by greatness.


One aspect of nationalism is of course keeping the OTHER out.  That seems to be the limited meaning even in Europe, narrow nationalism based on identity.  Globalism is the adversary of nationalism and wants to keep the doors and windows open for everybody, including the dangerous Muslims.  In American nationalism, Muslims from certain lawless states like Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria are not allowed entry, but perhaps it was American nationalism itself that is responsible for their lawlessness.


American nationalism wants regime change across the globe, and american globalism also wants the same thing.  British nationalism does not want the European courts to interfere with their sovereignty but has no qualms about lecturing Myanmar government on treatment of Rohingyas which is a trait they share with Mike Pence of American nationalism.  What is happening to Rohingyas is in no way different from what is happening in Iraq or Syria.


American nationalism stands up in support of Uighur nationalism.  American nationalism supports the rights of the Uighur nation to sport beards, skull caps, wear veils, and use Islam for secessionist and separatist activities.  Uighur globalists join the ISIS training camps and try with CIA support to infiltrate back into China to commit terrorist activists.  The CIA must be either nationalist or globalist, who knows?


Chinese nationalism opposes Uighur nationalism and globalist Islam, but supports Kashmir nationalism and Pakistani nationalism.  Judging from these examples it seems that the right hand of the nationalist does not know what the left hand of the globalist is doing.  There is a complete schizophrenic relationship between the right and the left and the public are being egged on to pick sides and enjoy the freedom to protest, which democracy has thrust upon them.


Keeping aside these meaningless classifications, it is important for the western deceivers to recognize that their political and economical fundamentalism has failed them and start cooperating with each other in evolving a meaningful antijihad approach rather than unscrupulous competition in the name of free trade.


It is not empowerment of women that will end terror, but empowerment of mothers to recognize the dangers of Islam and resist poisoning of their children's minds by Islamic prejudices routinely preached in any standard madrasa or mosque.  In that light, China's focus on reeducation of Uighur kids is right on the dot.  THIS IS THE SINE QUA NON OF A SUCCESSFUL ANTIJIHAD POLICY, PREVENTING THE FAMILIAL TRANSMISSION OF JIHADI VALUES.


If the Americans had tried implementing such a strategy in Afghanstan 17 years ago rather than holding elections and reserving seats for burkha-clad feminists, they would have been half-way home by now.


REMINDER:  You can save the planet by understanding, educating, sharing the post and donating.  Do your bit.

TWO STATE SOLUTION, MARKANDEYA KATJU-(M.K)-GANDHI

Dear Earthlings,

As you know, Mr. Katju is a great critic of MK Gandhi whom he calls a British agent, but what I want to draw your attention to is that Mr.  Katju not only shares his initials with him but also shares the same opinions about Muslims.  Mr.  Katju makes the startling statement that 99% of Pakistanis are good people.  Now any Indian will contest that.  So Mr. Katju has to provide solid proof for his claim.  Since he is an ex-SC judge, he might manufacture evidence but let us remind him that at least 4% of Pakistanis voted for Tehreek-e-Labbaik, so he has an uphill task and how come 96% of Pakistanis and a similar number of Bangladeshis want an Islamic state so badly if they are so good.

Now some university students have flattered this gullible judge that his views are in great demand and he has given us eight tips for a revolution, but the problem is if your premise is faulty, the results will be disastrous.  MK Gandhi also believed in the common syncretic culture of Hindus and Muslims and that is why he based his approach on Eeshwar Allah tero naam.  MK Gandhi was also unilateralist in his approach like ex-justice MK.   That is why they are two sides of the same coin.

What Mr. Katju ignores is that Muslims do not share his views.  So Mr. Katju's opinions are not really based on some serious consideration, but maybe on the recent predilection for all kinds of retired gentlemen to hop on to the peace lecture circuit.  To burnish his secular credentials, he of course considers Akbar and Tipu to be his heroes.  He also shares a scientific temper with the British whom he claims to despise.

He also has claimed that his knowledge is deeper than most intellectuals today.  Our English gentleman wants to industrialise India just like the British would.  He wants us to overtake the Chinese.  He ignores that industrialization with cheap labor itself leads to poverty.  His uniform civil code is a secular version of the uniform Jihadi code.  He is right about democracy.  In fact democratic politics is based on artificial right and left divide while caste is based on organic inequality.

But the biggest ballast of them all is his obsession with unification of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.  One needs to be really thick skulled to imagine a secular union with Muslims.  The love for India displayed in the party circuit is nothing compared to the hatred that is propagated through every Muslim institution in Pakistan and Bangladesh.  How can there be any serious comparison of the reunification of Vietnam and Germany with that of India?

The problem is the fake news media gives importance to anything that can create controversy.  It helps to showcase our ostentatious freedoms to the western galleries.  The problem is that the mindset of Mr. Katju gives us some insight of the cavalier approach of the justice system when it comes to Muslims.  The judges seem to be acquiring a globalist mindset rather than a factual mindset.  There is no difference between the SC of India, America, or UK.  All of them plagiarise with gay abandon from each other's constitutional copybook.  

The architect of the Pakistan problem or the Palestine two state solution is one and the same, the Englishman.  Katju preaching same culture to Muslims of Pakistan is like Israel preaching about sharing one God to Arab jihadis.  Katju opposing Gandhi is like Modi opposing Nehru and then making back room deals with Mehbooba like Nehru did with Abdullah.  THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR PALESTINE OR KASHMIR IS DEISLAMISATION.  Reunification without deIslamisation will be even more disastrous than Partition.

REMINDER:  You can save the planet by understanding, educating, sharing this post, and donating.  Do your bit.

BLASPHEMY, ECHR, and ASIYA BIBI

Dear Earthlings,


The ECHR has been technically very accurate when it ruled that Mohammad cannot justifiably be called a pedophile.  Marriage to an underage Aisha is just that and nothing else, but the seminar of Elizabeth Sabaditsch of Austria was about Basic Information on Islam and she was providing a very important social service in educating people about the dangers of Islam and murderous idolatry of Muhammad.


Anybody knows that when aiming at a target, not every bullet will hit the bull's eye.  So considering that so few liberals can even attempt to come up with a decent criticism of Islam and the yeoman's service she was providing, she should have been rewarded for it and small indiscretions overlooked.  The panel of judges could not have been unaware of the Geert Wilders case in Sweden, or the Salman Rushdie affair or the Charlie Hebdo massacre and acquiesced in the general consensual appeasement of Muslim fanatics by the European political class.


As usual, distinguished British intellectuals waxed eloquent about not protecting any beliefs and hurt feelings.  If people called Gandhi a bigot and Marx a monster, then they had the right to do so was how some eminent intellectual paraphrased it.  Giving of offence should not be criminalized says the British headmaster of free speech.  The question arises, is this the right framework to see the issue?  The matter is being completely generalized and tossed in the realm of the abstract.


From a life and death issue, it has been trivialized to a slanging match between admirers of Gandhi and Marx who are both passe.  Has this been done just as a matter of liberal routine or is there more to it than meets the eye?  Is Kenan Malik a cryptoMuslim?  Or is he a cryptocommunist?  But this blogger will frame the question differently.  Is Islam a religion of peace or is it not?  That is the question.  Now let Kenan Malik and his fellow liberals say that people have the right to see it both ways.


No, emphatically no, because only one answer is true and that answer will decide the lives of billions of Homo sapiens like Brent Taylor.  Brent Taylor died because Europeans and Americans were misled by their politicians and pseudointellectuals like Kenan Malik that Afghanistan was ripe for democracy, people everywhere are the same and that Islam is the most peaceful religion on the planet, even more peaceful than Buddhism.  That lie has led to the death of Brent Taylor and many others like him and will continue to bleed civil societies across the world.


The truth is Mr. Malik that only you and your English masters believe that they have the right to defend the peaceful nature of Islam in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  Why should not the Quran be outlawed?  Why should not Islamic worship be restricted?  Why are you giving the cleric the equal right to offend kafirs? What is this peculiar EuroAmerican fetish for human rights that you display like a thong?  Is this "challenging both robustly" some kind of MMA tournament that you are sponsoring?  IT IS NOT BELIEF VERSUS BELIEF BUT FACT VERSUS BELIEF.


Not to be outdone, some UK newspapers made it a sovereignty issue of UK parliament and how unelected judges undermine it.   This is how the media creates unnecessary controversy where it is not needed.  Have the elected leaders of Europe acquitted themselves well when it comes to the migration crisis?  To top it all, the President of the European Parliament , Antonio Tajani calls for the release of Asiya Bibi.


How on earth is she to be released without "stirring up prejudice, threatening religious peace, and arousing justified indignation"?  I would request those who chance upon this blog to take the trouble to express your dissent directly to Mr. Kenan Malik on Twitter, and The Guardian.  I would like you to discuss this post with like minded individuals.  That is the very minimum that you can do.


REMINDER:  You can save the planet by understanding, educating, sharing this post and donating.  Do your bit.