TWITTER'S CORPORATE TYRANNY

Dear Earthlings,

I have joined twitter since September 2018 and my handle satishb@antijihadclass has the aim of eradicating Islamic terrorism by 2100.  This is because most mainstream journalists like to portray Islam as a religion of peace because the majority of Muslims are peaceful and have got nothing to to with terrorism.  This is the most specious argument because Islam is not decided by majority vote, but by what is in the Quran and the example of Mohammed which is used by Muslims to justify all their perverse choices.  This is a uniquely Islamic way of doing things and majority or minority has got nothing to do with it.  In fact, the minority of mullahs and terrorists hold great sway over the majority of peaceful Muslims who know very well not to antagonize this small but influential minority as Salman Taseer of Pakistan discovered to his own detriment.

LATEST VIDEO:  DEFINITION OF HUMAN

Laura Loomer was permanently banned from Twitter in November 2018 citing hateful conduct after a tweet criticizing Ilhan Omar and her faith.  In the tweet in question, Loomer called Omar "anti Jewish" and said she is a member of a religion in which "homosexuals are oppressed" and "women are abused" and "forced to wear the hijab."  Loomer insisted that she did not violate Twitter's terms. "Everything I said is 100 percent true and factual. It's not malicious, it's not mean, it's not hateful," she said.

I totally agree with Loomer.  This is legitimate criticism.  This cannot be the reason for banning people from social media.  Even the twitter account, Imam of Peace, had complained that he received a notice from Twitter for violating Pakistan's blasphemy laws for flagging a tweet that called on Australian police to investigate extremism in mosques following a deadly knife attack in Melbourne in November.  So now, will jihadi colonies like Pakistan have a veto on what is written regarding Muslims and Islam? 

Even Saudi Canadian activist, Ensaf Haider, received a similar notice for violating Pakistani laws.  Twitter wrote to her concerning a tweet which showed a woman wearing the Islamic full veil, with the caption: “Retweet if you’re against niqab.”  Haider said, “I’m very shocked by Twitter. They want to silence any voice telling the truth.”

Antony Furey, the Toronto Sun op-ed editor was startled to learn he stood accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammad on receiving legal notice from Twitter.  His perceived offence was to post cartoons of the Prophet years ago.   Furey, who detailed his experience in a column for his newspaper  said: “I’m somewhat alarmed that Twitter would even allow a country to make a complaint like this, as it almost validates their absurd blasphemy laws.”   But he added: “One troubling consequence to all of this is that even people in countries without these blasphemy laws may start to self-censor for fear of the reach foreign governments will have over them in the online world.”
Pakistan has previously threatened to block Twitter if the company did not remove content its government found offensive.  It banned Facebook for hosting allegedly blasphemous content for two weeks in 2010 while YouTube was unavailable from 2012 to 2016 over an amateur film about the Prophet Mohammad that led to global riots.  I received the following message from Twitter yesterday:

Hi satishb, Your account, @antijihadclass has been locked for violating the Twitter Rules. Specifically for: Violating our rules against hateful conduct. You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. satishb @antijihadclass @FrankBenSaor @Imamofpeace less muslims less trouble more muslims more trouble [...] RT Violating our rules against abusive behavior. You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice. satishb @antijihadclass @ashoktewari @MakrandParanspe @shahid_siddiqui they should be asked to give up sharia or lose their human status, closure of masjids and madrasas promoting sharia, if they resist, death Please note that repeated violations may lead to a permanent suspension of your account. Proceed to Twitter now to fix the issue with your account. Go to Twitter

In the first tweet, I have pointed out the relationship between the proportion of muslims and the likely trouble that they may cause as their population increases.  Now this is borne out by simple observation and common sense.  What hateful conduct does this imply?  Where is the harassment or threat?

In the second tweet, very succinctly, I have pointed out the role of sharia in Islamic terrorism.  Implementation of sharia is the prime demand of any Islamic terrorist organization.  Sharia is prejudicial to humanity and far from being of divine origin as is routinely preached to young, unsuspecting Muslim kids, it is totally jihadi in origin.  It has no respect for human life, intellect, women's dignity, and criminal in character.  No sensible anti-terror program can overlook the malevolence inherent in sharia.  I have therefore pitched for a ban on sharia and its malicious propaganda.  In the process, a ban on masjids and madrasas promoting sharia is inevitable.  We all know what happened in the Lal Masjid case in Pakistan.  If jihadis use these madrasas as headquarters for resisting humanity, then death penalty for them is the natural consequence.

Where is the abusive behavior?  Should we be glorifying sharia?  Is sharia so benevolent to women?  Is asking for a ban on sharia incitement?  Is calling for an end to preaching of sharia silencing 'someone's' voice?  does the voice of the mulla not need to be silenced? Does anybody think that those who used their belief to justify the violation of Yazidi women deserve equal human status?

Twitter is being guided by populist western principles to determine what constitutes Islamophobia and what doesn't.  Only facts can determine what is just and unjust, not some vague western concepts of human rights.   The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had clearly stated in 2003 that sharia law is incompatible with human rights, but in 2018, it flip flopped and opted to listen to a petition to have sharia law parallel to European laws.  However,  On 22 January 2019, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a Resolution entitled “Sharia, the Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights.” This Resolution - although non-binding - is of major political importance, as it reflects an awareness that Islamic law constitutes a competing legal-religious order to the law of Western modernity, both in Europe and at the universal level. The PACE is “greatly concerned about the fact that Sharia law – including provisions which are in clear contradiction with the Convention – is applied, either officially or unofficially, in several Council of Europe member States, or parts thereof.”  

Obviously, Twitter is not updated with respect to these latest reformations in the human rights paradigm of Europe, although the UN and American officials also seem to be napping at the moment, but we do not need to be told by the human rights inspectors of America and Europe what constitutes human values and what do not, because we go by the facts.

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

MOHAMMAD AND TAIPING REBELLION

Dear Earthlings,


For many Muslims, the prophethood of Mohammad is a miracle that is self-evident from his victories against the numerically superior Arabic tribes under seemingly hopeless conditions.  Only Allah and his angels could have stolen victory for the Muslims from the jaws of defeat.  The victories of the jihadi armies over the Persian empire and the Byzantines confirm their belief.  They take great pride in having defeated both the superpowers in Afghanistan and predict the eventual Islamic victory over all non-Muslims.


However, today we are going to find a simple explanation for this phenomenon by comparing it to a parallel occurrence in distant China.  The Taiping rebellion and story of Hong Xiuquan bears striking resemblance to the story of Islam and Mohammad.  Hong traveled to Guangzhou to take the imperial examinations but failed to pass and met a missionary, Edwin Stevens, preaching Christianity whose assistant Liang Fa gave him some pamphlets on Christianity.  In Mohammad's time there were many converts called Hanifs who preached some missionary-based belief systems.


After three failed attempts to pass the examination, Hong had a nervous breakdown.  He was delirious for many days and hallucinated about visiting heaven where God gave him a sword to fight demons.  He saw Confucius being punished for leading people astray.  Mohammad also claimed to visit Heaven on a ladder and meet God personally.


Hong claimed that he was the brother of Jesus and had been entrusted with the task of ridding the world of demon worship.  He began by burning all Confucian and Buddhist statues and books in his house.  Mohammad too began by preaching against idolatry in Mecca.  Hong's first converts were his close relatives and so were Mohammad's.  Hong's iconoclasm invited opposition from others and he was exiled just like Mohammad.


Hong studied Christianity under the Southern Baptist misionary, Issachar Jacox Roberts.  Mohammad also studied Christianity under his converted cousin Waraqa.  Some of Hong's followers started having trances of their own in which they claimed to have direct messages from God and Jesus.  Mohammad claimed that he received messages from Allah and his angel Jibril.  Many Arabs inspired by Mohammed started claiming to be prophets themselves, prominent amongst whom was Mussaylima who claimed to be a partner of Mohammed.


Mohammad claimed that his Quran was the original book of God, while Hong claimed that his Taiping Bible was the original version of the ancient religion of China which had been distorted by Confucius.  Mohammad also claimed that Kaaba was the original temple of God which was hijacked by Meccans and therefore it belonged to the Muslims.


Hong's growing popularity led to military conflict with the Chinese authorities and after initial successes he declared the foundation of the Heavenly Kingdom in 1851 just like Mohammad started the Islamic rule in Medina.  In 1853, Hong captured Nanjing and made it his capital.  In 1964, however, it was besieged and Hong died possibly because of poisoning.


What we can learn from this is the similarity of the deleterious influence of Christianity on human psychology in places as far removed as Arabia or China, be it the 7th century or the 17th century.  Today's liberals declare that the more you oppress some ideology the more it strengthens.  17th century Chinese did not have such modern inhibitions and this rebellion was effectively crushed after its initial stupendous success.


We can apply the same lessons to Islam even in the 21st century.  FIRST WE NEED TO DISCREDIT IT WITH THE HELP OF THE FACTS AND NOT GLORIFY IT AS A RELIGION OF PEACE.  Second, those who use violence to promote Islam have to be destroyed.


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

TLAIB SHAH FAISAL FIASCO

Dear Earthlings,


Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar became the first Muslim women to be elected to the US Congress.  They are said to be the brave new face of the Muslim-American woman hereto considered to be meek, submissive and docile by stereotypical western media.  Tlaib bad mouthed Trump on getting elected and threatened to impeach him.  Ilhan out of great love and respect for her faith chose to don the hijab.  Both, however chose to be sworn in on the Quran.


We all know that Muslims are brave and brash and audacious when attacking other people and their values, but fall short miserably when questioning their own blind prejudices.  Ilhan defended the hijab citing the first amendment.  That should ring alarm bells when some jihadi slave uses the blind outdated legal document to justify her Islamic slavery.  Trump could not help bragging that Rashida would not have the same freedom of speech in her native land.


Why should freedom of speech be misused by jihadi apologists?  These are poster girls of a victimhood narrative which makes the Muslim the victim of an Islamophobic world while the reality is quite the opposite.  Naseeruddin Shah, very histrionically, fears for the safety of his children.  Shah however does not want to analyse any Islamic cause for his fear.  He just wants to live in his liberal celebrity world where everyone gets unconditional love even if he is a terrorist.


Shah has no advice for Muslims who practice teen talaq, polygamy, join terrorist groups, refuse any amendments in sharia.  Like a typical jihadi he asserts that 'Yeh mulk mera hai, mujhe is mulk se koi nahi nikal sakta."  Why should Muslims with such obscurantist values not be thrown out of this planet?


The system wants to pretend that giving these delinquents a voice amounts to offering them a vent for their animalistic passions.  The system creates traitors like Jinnah, Shah Faisal who bite back at the very system that nurtured them.  If people already knew that the courts and CBI were fixed, now Shah Faisal proves that the IAS topper is also fixed by the system to advertise its liberality.  Now Faisal has realized that the real bang for the buck is in politics.


Faisal laments the 1000s of deaths in Kashmir at the hands of security forces.  He blames the rise of Hindutva forces and like any typical Muslim omits the Islamic role in the carnage.  If any proof is required that the system is empowering the traitors and inhumans, this is it.  Far from protecting human values, the system in the name of the Palestine or Kashmir struggle is feeding a very dangerous secular victimhood complex amongst Muslims which only adds fuel to their jihadi fire.


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

STRASBOURG ATTACK AND LIBERAL ABETMENT

Dear Earthlings,

"Don't blame Islam for the crazy acts of a few lunatics.  Why should an entire community be blamed for the actions of a few misguided individuals?" says the moderate Muslim.  "My son had justified ISIS terrorism, but I would have reported him to the police if he had told me of his plans," says the moderate father.  Oh!  No, his father happens to be on the S list himself for being 'radicalized' and so are some of his brothers.  They happen to have salafist tendencies.  The whole family lives in that area of Strasbourg which contains 10% of those on the S list.  If you thought the S list was something serious, forget it, even soccer hooligans could be on the S list.  S could stand for secularism.  Emperor Macron asked his police to investigate why the attack could not be averted.  For starters, why not have a separate list for gangster jihadist profiles?

LAST VIDEO - WHAT SPIRITUAL JIHAD

Except Marine Le Pen, none of the major politicians even thought it worthwhile to highlight the Islamist nature of the attack.  The closest that Laurent Nunez came was in his description of Cherif Chekatt as "being consumed by evil."  As you can gather from the lame excuses trotted out to deflect criticism in the direction of Islam, the argument revolves around only a minuscule fraction of so-called Muslims being involved in terrorism.  It is the motive that is important, and not the number of terrorists.  The motive for this heinous crime was Islamic supremacism, as clearly established in the jihadi war cry, "Allah hu Akbar" uttered by jihadists all over the world.  To establish Islamic supremacism, the nonMuslims have to be silenced.  If people are afraid to criticize Islam, then Islam can masquerade as a religion of peace, as a religion of feminism, as the most pristinely untampered religion.

But, then what are the progressives doing?  They are signing multibillion dollar arms contracts with Middle East countries to provide jobs to European citizens.  Do a handful of deaths really matter when billions of dollars and jobs are on the stake?  If you ask Trump, the death of a Khashoggi is not a big deal if America has to be great again.  Suppressing the motive behind the attack implicates the liberals themselves as abettors of Islamic terrorism.  Are salafis moderate?  Who and what is a moderate?  Does a terrorist declare his plans to all and sundry before attacking?  If that were to be the sign, then no terror attack would be successful.  The person had 27 convictions on his name.  Can a person under surveillance have a grenade and a rifle with ammunition at his home?  What exactly are those policemen looking for when they are surveilling 20,000 suspects?  It is all a humongous bluff.  Just give the masses some stories with spin, and then it is business as usual.  It is plain economic seduction.

The only problem is that economics of the left and right variety does not offer any solution to Islamic terrorism.  To stop Islamic terrorism, you have to study the mind of a terrorist.  You have to study all the prejudices that have been inculcated in his mind from a young age by the herd that he belongs to, but that would be a repudiation of all that the West has stood for in the past 300 years of so.  It would be the end of the new world order as envisaged by the Euroamerican axis.  Why bother? Extend and pretend.  If Merkel goes, Kramp-Karrenbauer will take her place.  Let us not shake the certitudes that hold the western firmament from crashing down.

Should not we be asking why Muslims get more Islamized in jails?  But, of course, it would be foolish to think that Marx, Mao, or Adam Smith could provide the answer.  Do these liberals want to think outside of their usual repertoire?  The usual trick is for the right and left to start blaming each other.  Then the masses line up behind their favorite football teams and they feel overjoyed and empowered to take part in a slanging match which does not come up with any meaningful result in the least.  Can there ever be a nationalist solution for a global problem like Islamic terrorism?  Is recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel a nationalist or globalist move?  There is a complete connivance between the moderate liberal and the moderate Muslim (whatever that means) when it comes to Islamic terrorism.  Both are brutally dishonest and betray Homo sapiens when they take positions on this issue.

Nothing bares the trust deficit between the governed and the elected more than the allegations of false flag operation made by the yellow vests.  It shows what the masses think of their leaders and their despicable character.  Will those who ask for the repatriation of those salafis be derided as Islamophobes or will a few people continue to be regularly sacrificed at the altar of political correctness?  You can identify the trajectory of a terrorist long before he commits a crime.  Should we wait till he commits one?  Is Google coming up with some new AI algorithms to predict 'suspected terrorist' attacks?  Or should we rely more on our common sense and less on fashionoble (pun intended) western principles?

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