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.

UN MIGRATION PACT AND HIJRA

Dear Earthlings,

The UN migration pact is another liberal sermon from the EU mount.  It mimics the election manifestos of many liberal European political parties and smacks of grandstanding before a global audience.  Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most liberal of them all?  It makes dangerous assumptions about the economic causes of migration.  It completely overlooks the EuroAmerican political meddling which has ripped apart the social fabric of communities across the globe.

LAST VIDEO - DEFINITION OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM

It is founded on a wish list of safe, orderly, and regular migration.  Though it claims to be nonbinding, the recent demands of Macron and Merkel that those nations who do not accept migration will have to pay the refugees indicates the coercive intent behind these universal pacts.  Nations who are in debt will sign up and pretend to be compliant while those who do not will be sanctioned in many ways.

It is difficult to distinguish whether it is a migration pact or an economic tourism pact.  It dogmatically assumes that FDI in economically undeveloped countries can stem migration.  The bureaucrats of  Merkel-Macron Inc. do not seem to have applied their minds as to how economic aid can stabilize such regions like Somalia and Afghanistan.  They prophesy the smooth economic integration of these migrants into their host countries by unleashing a slew of economic goodies which are seldom available to the citizens of host countries themselves, for eg. Italy and Greece, completely ignoring the cultural conflict.

The text is pickled with such tickling European delicacies like child sensitivity and gender equality.  True to the highest traditions of EuroAmerican nondiscriminatory, nonracial, and non-xenophobic approach, it completely gulps down the threat of Islamic migration to non-Islamic lands and deeply damaging implications thereof.  All these countries deliberately discriminate in favor of high-skilled rather than low-skilled labor.

Penalizing hate crimes clause is very cunningly inserted into the document to satisfy the OIC which seems to be the driving force behind this Islamically sanitized, sharia-compliant, halal pact.  Kaiser Merkel leaves no stone unturned to wipe away the guilt of the German Holocaust by consistently topping the liberal charts.  Knowing fully well that immigrants are the prime reason for public disenchantment with her, she nevertheless tries to outdo May's Brexit duplicity and hypocrisy.

One can only hope that this senseless pact stirs up global counter reaction in the form of a GLOBAL ANTI-HIJRA PACT.

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

MUSLIM COUNCIL OF BRITAIN AND ISLAMOPHOBIA

Dear Earthlings,


The All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims has come up with a definition of Islamophobia.  It conveniently classifies Islamophobia as a type of racism knowing fully well that Euroamericans get hysterical and lose all rationality when accused of racism.  It seeks to criminalize targeting expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.

VIDEO - 2 SUPER VILLAINS OF HUMANITY

You run the risk of being prosecuted for targeting sharia or even calling ISIS as muslim.  As you know, the paragon of Islamophilia, the BBC refuses to acknowledge the Muslimness of ISIS for the very same reason.  This is the new etiquette that is sought to be laid down by the architects of the new world order.  Now, you may even have to desist from calling it Islamic terrorism.  Needless to say, this is the outcome of the British government bartering away justice for the sake of Saudi oil.


Though lip service has been paid to allowing criticism of Islam, it is contradicted by giving the example of the claim that Islam was spread by the sword or subjugated nonMuslims as Islamophobic.  Any student of history knows that Islam did spread by sword to Iran, Egypt, N. Africa, Spain and Turkey.  Muslims should not be held responsible for the persecution of Copts, Hindus, Christians, in any Islamic state as that would be Islamophobic. pg 56-57


It seeks to legitimize Palestine and Kashmir terrorism as self-determination.  Recognizing the Islamic ambition of taking over the whole planet for the sake of Islam is again defined as Islamophobia.  These are the goals of organisations like HuT.  These attempts show the high level of confidence and audacity that the white collar jihadis of the Muslim Council of Britain have in the greed of the government of Britain to appease the nefarious demands of these Islamic criminals.


We all know that the popular discourse in Europe and America portrays the Muslims as victims of global oppression while the atrocities against nonMuslims in Islamic colonies have been completely
overlooked for economic and political reasons.  The Organization of Islamic Colonies has openly rejected human rights which is not in conformity with sharia and these Islamic agents have the gall to claim that Islam is not uniform.


MECCA IS THE CAPITAL OF GLOBAL ISLAMIC PREJUDICE AGAINST NONMUSLIMS.  All Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca.  NonMuslims are not even allowed in Mecca.  They are not allowed to build temples in Mecca.  Before accusing others of Islamophobia, did these shameless wretches and their British instigators recognize the humanophobia within Islam?  Did they acknowledge the kafirophobia within Islam?  All that these lecherous British scoundrels can think of is the discrimination against women in Islam.  Women in Islam are not allowed to dress like British actresses and supermodels is the sole complaint of these emancipators of womankind.


If the Muslim Council of Britain does not represent Islam, then these EuroAmericans also do not represent Homo sapiens.  This is a too-clever-by-half attempt of jihadis to infiltrate into politics, police, armed forces, and refugees and subvert host societies, but do these so called elected representatives even care?


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

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.