Blog Archives

Siding With The Enemy

Photo-20160225180227040.jpg

“Islam peaceful, Fundamentalism bad…”

 

The “religion of peace” has, it being so peaceful and all, claimed another 30+ victims. 

The Evil Clown has nothing better to do than to (and I quote) ask the Lord 

“to convert the hearts of those people taken in by cruel fundamentalism.”

In normal times this would be breathtakingly unChristian. But we don’t live in normal times, we live in the times of Francis. Therefore, I can’t say I am surprised. 

Francis manages to be an enemy of Christianity, and an accomplice in Muslim atrocities, twice with a single statement. 

Firstly, there is no word in Francis that may indicate even the desire of a conversion of the infidel. Islam isn’t really the problem here, is it now? 

Secondly, Francis does what he always loves to do: attack Christianity as he avoids to say a word about Islam. The carefully chosen, unqualified word “fundamentalism” is blatantly aimed at directing your attention towards the alleged faults of… Christians. The message here is clear: there are bad guys in every religion, and who am I to judge? 

You can make, as always, the Litmus test of the unChristian statement: what would an atheist politician need to change in these words to align it with his ideology? Nothing. What would he say to deflect attention on Islam and direct it against Christianity? The exactly same words. 

The time has passed when such statements could simply be interpreted away with an appeal to the obviously limited intelligence, and even more limited education, of this boor in white. 

We must accept the reality – and we must say it out loud – that as Muslims (notice the word here? The one beginning with “M”) try to plunge Europe into fear and chaos Francis does everything in his power to deflect the attention from the real problem as he attacks the Church he hates with every breath. 

On this Maundy Thursday, I hope my readers will renew their prayer to free Catholicism from the scourge – well deserved, but terrible nevertheless – of a Pope who hates his own religion.

 

 

 

 

 

Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Oh well, there we are again. As I write this we are at 128 dead [edit: 127 in latest news] in five locations [edit: six in latest news], and 99 gravely wounded. The death toll is going to rise. 

This is the price we pay for our stupidity.

So let us enjoy another day or two of painful attempts from the press to avoid calling the problem with its proper name:

Islam.

USA Start To Experience The “Religion Of Peace”

mohammed (1)

And so it goes: an US group mindful of freedom of expression organises a “Mohammed cartoon contest”, with no less than $10,000 for the winner. 

In Europe no such initiative would be allowed, because Europe is not really free. It is, rather, a conglomerate of democracies in which the citizen decide in which way they want not to be free, and controlled by a Benevolent Nanny.

The US are, though, rather free, in the sense that at least they still take freedom of expression much more seriously than us (as for the freedom of religion, the jury is out). They organise, then, the context.

Alas, they also learn that in XXI America, the religion of peace is coming to their own homes, with two Muslims starting to peacefully try to kill as many citizens as they can before being killed themselves.   

Note here the following: 

1) You can’t make anything that displeases the peaceful Muslim brother without running the risk of being killed. 

2) The security did not engage in “dialogue”. They gunned the two bastards down. 

3) The event took place in Texas. I am not the only one to think this is one of those places where a number of people take their freedoms seriously and are, therefore, armed. It’s difficult to make a massacre of people armed. Much better if they are all harmlessly sitting there, like European sheep ready for the slaughter. 

The US got another demonstration of the “religion of peace”.  One wonders how many more lessons they will need. 

 M

Germanwings: May We Please Have Non-Muslims Pilots?

The Gateway pundit has reported German sources who say the Co-pilot of Germanwings who flew himself and 149 others to death had converted to Islam. The German prosecutors let us know that there is no religious motive, and the girlfriend dumping him or a more generic depression were at play.

I want to believe the German prosecutors would not go as far as to willingly suppress a possible motive as too dangerous for their career and too explosive in general, but I cannot persuade myself that this is not possible, either. Germany is PC central, and the German prosecution service is attached (other than the Italian one, which is why in Italy not even Prime Ministers are immune from prosecution) to the Government, which means that incurring the ire of the Justice Minister and the Chancellor is not going to be good for your career, at all.

In any way, I have not read any official confirmation that the man had not converted. Which makes it probable, if eye witnesses say he was frequenting the mosque, that he had, and the prosecutors simply consider this a non-event as far as the investigation is concerned.

I beg to differ.

Girlfriend dumping or no girlfriend dumping, it is clear that Islam (the “religion of peace”, remember?) is just one of those thing which might transform a depressed whino into a mass murderer. Add the hate for the West to the already explosive cocktail of depression and romantic disappointment, and there you have it: Satan’s party trick.

I wonder now: how can any aeroplane with a Muslim pilot – particularly a convert, but not necessarily – be a safe aeroplane? Granted, most Muslim pilots are certainly peaceful people with no intention of trying to fly into some skyscraper or simply on the ground, but you can never know when the next “sleeper” (convert or no convert) will strike. Shall captains, therefore, never go to the bathroom anymore? How can we make the cabins accessible in case of emergency without making them accessible to terrorists in 9/11 style? We can’t escape this fact, that this kind of behaviour is compatible with orthodox Islam, and would be praised by those who take it seriously. The fact that most muslim actually don’t does not change a iota in this elementary fact.

I would at least have the option of choosing a “certified non-Muslim operated aeroplane”, as this would do much for my ease of mind. But I suppose this goes against the oh so sensitive PC legislation in the EU, so I guess that other aeroplanes will have to go down before sanity takes charge.

The irony of this is that, if the motivation was a religious one, not even the Islamists will profit of it. There isn’t much glory in killing 150 people in a mass murder you can’t put your label on, and whilst it will make some bastard in some mosque very happy the first element of terrorism act (spreading fear) would not be reached anyway.

But in the end – and to close – it could be that the Islam component was simply that: was moved a suicidal man to fly another 149 “infidels” to death with him.

May I have a non-Muslim equipage, pretty please?

I am afraid not. At least until sanity comes back.

M

 

News From The “Religion of Peace”

Violent Infidel Pedophile: Mohammed.

Violent Infidel Pedophile: Mohammed.

From the otherwise rather sleepy and windy Wales, news of some importance reaches us: it says here (I know it’s the BBC, a lair of pedophiles and other perverts; but this they should have managed right) that a mother has beaten her son to death with a stick, as a punishment because the boy could not learn the Koran fast enough.

The detail gives a lot of interesting details: the woman (forget “lady”) is a university graduate; when she discovered that her son had died out of the injuries inflicted to him she set fire to the body of her dead child; she said she did so in order to avoid being killed by her husband upon discovery of the death; she also managed to accuse her husband of the killing. What a delicate person.

You might wonder: why does Mundabor bore us with this individual case of a loony family? Because it seems to me that there is a system of values at play here, which was if not directly causative at least an important contribution in what has happened.

Firstly, you hear every now and then of White mothers who are very cruel to their children (rare, though); but you see, they generally aren’t observant Christians; they come from the worst of the urban plebs, and tend to have a history of alcohol or drugs. Here, we have a family of observant Muslims who want their son to become a Koran memorisation expert. The family is certainly not destitute, taxi-driver isn’t bad in Cardiff and if they had lived in misery this would have been used by the defence for all it’s worth (look, it’s so difficult; the stress of the abject misery, and having to care for so many children at home; of course the one or other gets beaten to death once in a while…).

Secondly, the mere idea of a mother burning her son’s dead body and then accusing her husband of the killing is utterly inconceivable in a Christian setting, as is the affirmation the husband would kill the wife upon discovery of the death. Strangely enough, both acts do not seem so strange if put in a Muslim setting: if a Palestinian mother can set her many children against the IDF and cash a lot of money if one of them is killed, one isn’t very surprised that another Muslim mother would beat his son “like a dog” (not my words; hers) for not memorising the Koran fast enough. As to the fear of being killed, I have known of Muslim women killed by their relatives for much less, though here it was probably an excuse; still, in this setting it is a less improbable one.

All in all, a climate emerges in which, though Islam must certainly not make of people such beasts (and I am sure many perfectly decent Muslim families live in England, though they follow the wrong religion; I have known some I can only define as exemplary), it is instrumental in what has happened here, where a well-educated woman beats her own child to death for not memorising the sacred book of her religion fast enough.

In a related news, the mega mosque in London will not be built; at least not as it is now proposed, a 9,000-place concrete nightmare.

Why am I relieved?

Religion of peace, my foot.

Chose a child rapist as a “prophet”, and this is what you get.

Mundabor

Taliban show how right Prince Charles is.

Prince Charles the Peaceful. Source: Times Online

I have reported yesterday about the extraordinary opinions of Prince Charles regarding the so-called “religion of peace”.

We now read in the London “Times” of the hanging of a 7-year-old boy for being, it would appear, a collaborator of the US and NATO forces, but the fact that his father – a tribal elder in the village – has spoken out against the Taliban might, well, just have played a role…….

The motives are still unclear and the Taliban deny any responsibility for the fact (they would, wouldn’t they?). Perhaps it was a local feud; perhaps the Taliban wouldn’t dare to go openly against a village elder and have murdered his son; or perhaps it was just a spontaneous outburst of environmental zeal due to the fact that over there there is – as the Prince deigned to inform us – “no separation between man and nature”.

Whoever the responsible of this atrocious murder may be, could someone please tell Prince Charles that in Christian countries – where there is a separation between man and nature – children of seven are not found hanged at nearby trees.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: