Why Do You Hate Jews? You Never Lived with them…?!

Figure 1A: Naz Shah from Bradford, an Asian woman from Bradford, an area as likely to have direct contact with the Jewish community as Quakers with Balinese Hindus.
Figure 1A: Naz Shah from Bradford, an Asian woman from Bradford, an area as likely to have direct contact with the Jewish community as Quakers with Balinese Hindus.

The following article explains a very strange issue with British Islam and its’ American counterpart. Both of them claim that they are open for freedom, yet they have bizarre, myopic and even more rabid and vitriolic opinions than people who have lived around Jews their whole lives. As I have said before, we need to look carefully at  freakball [1] groups such as these and understand what is going on. Take a look at the article below:

Beat this for a piece of spin. Today the Labour party was in trouble over remarks one of its MPs, Naz Shah, made online in 2014 about Israel and Jews. Journalists asked a spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn whether Mrs Shah was anti-Semitic.

“We’re not suggesting she’s anti-Semitic,” said the spokesman. “We’re saying she’s made remarks that she doesn’t agree with.”

To repeat. She’s made remarks… that she doesn’t agree with.

Well, I suppose that makes sense. You can see what must have happened. One evening, as Mrs Shah sat quietly at home, relaxing after a hard day’s community-building, her fingers suddenly started typing out opinions of their own free will. To Mrs Shah’s horror, they were opinions which ran counter to everything she stands for.

“No!” she cried, as the rogue digits tapped mutinously away. “Stop! That isn’t what I think at all! I unequivocally condemn every word of what I’m writing!”

Yet the fingers wouldn’t listen. Powerless to intervene, Mrs Shah wailed in dismay as they published the opinions on Facebook, and then defied her despairing pleas to delete them.

Poor Mrs Shah. A hostage to her own hands. Still, she had to act, and swiftly, to prove that she utterly rejected the comments misattributed to her by her fingers. There was only one thing for it.

Keep schtum for two years, and apologise only once her views had been exposed in the media.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron demanded to know why Jeremy Corbyn had done nothing to discipline Mrs Shah. Shouldn’t he be listening to his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who in March had said that if anyone in Labour expressed anti-Semitic views then “full stop, they’re out”?

Standing behind the Speaker’s chair, Mr McDonnell was out of most MPs’ sight. But I unmistakably saw him nod.

After PMQs, pressure continued to mount. Journalists asked Mr Corbyn’s spokesman to confirm that the Labour leader had the authority to dismiss Mrs Shah as a party whip. “Of course, he’s the leader,” said the spokesman. “Having met with her, he’s chosen not to.”

News of this decision did not meet with universal acclaim. Desperately, Mrs Shah had a go at apologising to MPs in the Commons. “I fully acknowledge I have made mistakes,” she said, “and I wholeheartedly apologise for the words I used… I truly regret what I did…”

It wasn’t enough. An hour later, Labour announced that she was suspended from the party.  “Jeremy Corbyn and Naz Shah,” said a statement, “have mutually agreed that she is administratively suspended from the Labour Party by the general secretary.”

Look at the wording of that. The party leader, who decided that Mrs Shah should face no consequences, agrees that she’s subsequently been suspended by someone else.

I wonder how Labour members feel now, when they look back at last September’s leadership election. Are any of them beginning to worry that they did something they don’t agree with?

 

[1] freak.ball adj. when two radically unrelated groups or things come together based on an underlying reason, cause or shared origin and work effectively; usually in synergy. n. freakball, sing. and pl., “Muslims groups in the Anglosphere and hard lefts working together; it’s totally freakball.” adj. “These freakball groups.” v. “In the 1960s, the KKK and the NOI freakball in a bid to further the cause of segregation.”

You Know A Civilisation is at its End When…

Figure 1A: Falling US birth rates.
Figure 1A: Falling US birth rates.

The following article from Infowars shows a sad and disturbing trend advertising the end of a civilisation:

ANTIPHYSICAL: WHY MEN ARE GIVING UP SEX & RELATIONSHIPS

From Facebook to porn, people are replacing real, tangible life experiences with a fantasy world
Kit Daniels- APRIL 30, 2016
Why are more men now watching sports and pornography instead of meeting women?
Here’s why more and more people now prefer to be mere spectators in life,
playing with their smartphones and tablets, instead of actively experiencing reality for themselves:

Make Room for Me…Even in Private

Figure 1A: A stock picture of Rizwan Shabir.
Figure 1A: A stock picture of Rizwan Shabir. (Photo courtesy of http://www.theblaze.com )

So a South Asian contestant has quit Bear Grylls’ new show as he cannot countenance the sight of women in bikinis and it is an “affront” to his faith. The question I asked myself is, “How did this happen?” Was he at his workplace when women came in and bared their breasts and shoved their burgeoning cleavage in his face? Perhaps he was at home and while eating a bowl of Fruit Loops his door was kicked open and swimsuit models burst inside in a perverted orgy of space invasion violence, bared what their Lord gave them and taunted the Muslim contestant?

No…Rizwan Shabir, 27, of Bradford,  was signed up to Bear Grylls, a televised survivalist camp which takes its’ name from the founder, Bear Grylls, who is after all English. As far as can be seen, Grylls is not Muslim and has grown up in English society. His show is a private endeavour that is broadcast to the public.

Rizwan Shabir decided, for whatever reason, to sign up for this show, which from the website, can definitely be seen to not be a masjid, madrasah, anywhere in South Asia. He joined, got involved but expected, on someone else’s show, someone else’s property and someone else’s venue to be given the same rank/authority he would be given at home or in his local community centre. Why? This is a private venue. It is filmed and broadcast, but it is a private venue.

This has happened on so many occasions, without people realising the wider ramifications. Someone might think, “This is great. We have to fight discrimination at all levels and making people feel uncomfortable is wrong! Just dead wrong!”

All seems well until you check the fine print. Whenever you bring these freakball [1] ideas into a discussion, someone always suffers and greater government control and shrinking privacy and entrepreneurship results. Let’s just take a roll call.

Tahera Ahmed made claims against United Airlines, only to be exposed as a fraud not long after by a witness on the flight. The issue had to do with receiving a full can of Diet Coke. They didn’t have one. Private airlines, you’re riding on them. Don’t like it, choose another option, another airline in fact. Next is Samantha Elauf, fashionista who applied for a job  at Abercrombie and Fitch and still continuing on after knowing that this is for fashion and that they explicitly do not have women that are covered in ads and working under their brand.

She would be denied the job based on the fact that it goes against their looks policy, which as a private company they are entitled to do. The woman who did the interview did not even know that Elauf was wearing hijab and a Muslim at the time. A Muslim might balk at this, but take a look at this picture of Elauf on Instagram and then this one, both which show dramatically different types of head covering for what a Muslim woman dresses like in situations of modesty.

Let’s keep in mind that the woman in question for hiring would not know that the wrap and traditional hijab are both envisioned by Muslim fashionista lefties to be the same thing. The case then goes to the Supreme Court, obviously showing the pictures of traditional hijab (which was NOT shown in the interview) and a landmark ruling comes down.

How about a lecture going on at a university that is not a required class but you decide to show up anyway. You see something you don’t like, switch off the Powerpoint projector. Why? You felt offended. You’re entitled to do it.

What about making false bomb scare/death threat claims in order to gin up sympathy from the dominant society? Why? You felt threatened and thought this might help to get your self esteem back on par.

Going to an English school in England and don’t like the Nativity Play? Don’t feel that is to your liking. Get it banned, move it or cite your entitlement to now be offended. Completely just ignore the fact that England has been Christian longer than most of the rest of Western Europe. This is the ground zero of the Protestant Reformation after Germany and Switzerland.

Looking for friends and don’t feel you are celebrated enough? Call the police on a false kidnap bid and trigger negotiation talks. Why? You feel marginalised.

Feeling offended on account of that owner of a hair salon that will not hire you on account of you wearing hijab (which may be against their policy)? Well, then go ahead and try to ruin them. Why? You felt offended.

Why should you and I be concerned? I open a private social club (yeah, picture that…) and the dress code for all women is veils and long robes with flats. I also do not decide to have any women with blonde hair and blue eyes or green eyes and red hair. Keep in mind this is a private business and not government owned or anything like that.

I then receive legal documentation from some law firm that I need to prepare for a court date as a woman from Ireland with green eyes and red hair that came with a friend “felt” offended and had to leave. Now the recessive gene warriors are after me for opening a private social club with my own policies.

This is wrong. Dead wrong. Businesses that have policies cannot be forced (especially when they are PRIVATE) to accommodate people who feel entitled. What about people who go to Laugh Factory or other comedy clubs and laugh at all the jokes and then hear a Holocaust reference and feel the need to take legal action? You walked in there.

This entitlement must stop. I used to live not far from an exclusive golf and social club that had links to the Klan. It was private but I never wanted to get inside and find out what was going on. That’s their business. If we then discuss things like hospitals, which are built for public purpose, or public transport, then I have a right to protest and take the appropriate action. These things are for public use and consumption and access must not be restricted or hindered.

But as ever, entitlement culture continues on its’ inexorable march, knocking down businesses, disparate opinions and other ways of seeing the world until it reaches its’ desired final destination, complete and utter cultural androgyny. Utter sameness. People will no longer think, judge and reach conclusions but “feel.”

Felt like a snake…so I got my tongue forked.

You’re yelling. Don’t think you are? Well I feel that you are.

Never felt like a man/woman/indeterminate…so I had some surgery.

Don’t feel I can take care of children after falling pregnant in the aftermath of wild weekend sex…so I go and get it “taken care of.”

I wonder how some of these people would feel if English people charged into a masjid, ordered a scotch on the rocks and when being told it was not available, took legal action. This culture of entitlement must stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] freak’ball adj. when two radically unrelated groups or things come together based on an underlying reason, cause or shared origin and work effectively; usually in synergy. n. freakball, sing. and pl., “Muslims groups in the Anglosphere and hard lefts working together; it’s totally freakball.” adj. “These freakball groups.” v. “In the 1960s, the KKK and the NOI freakball in a bid to further the cause of segregation.”

 

 

Rochdale: What Else Do We Not Know?

Yet again, Muslims in the Anglosphere are in the news. I have few words as the article speaks so well for itself. I have done few modifications, save the writing under the pictures and the general layout. I gratefully cite the article source here.

Asian child sex gang who included a bus driver who met victims as he took them home from school in Rochdale are jailed for total of 125 years

  • Main victim in the shocking case was a white girl with learning difficulties
  • She was repeatedly groomed for sex from the age of 14 by a group of men
  • Judge paid tribute to her bravery today as he handed out long sentences 
  • Public gallery broke into applause as judge gave one man 25-year term

By RICHARD SPILLET FOR MAILONLINE 

Ten men have been jailed for a total of more than 125 years for sexual offences against eight girls and women in Rochdale.

They included Afraz Ahmed, a former bus driver who picked up two of his young victims from school and offered them free tickets.

He was originally questioned in 2006 but a decision was made not to prosecute him after he claimed the girls’ complaints against him were racially motivated.

The public gallery broke into applause today when Ahmed was handed a 25-year sentence.

The main victim in the case was white and had learning difficulties. She was said by prosecutors to be an ‘extremely vulnerable young woman’ who had endured ‘a very difficult home life’.

Figure 1A: Former bus driver Afraz Ahmed - who claimed his victims were racist when he was originally arrested - got the longest sentence. He motioned to the judge to ask if he could say something after he was given the jail term, but he was ordered to leave the dock
Figure 1A: Former bus driver Afraz Ahmed – who claimed his victims were racist when he was originally arrested – got the longest sentence. He motioned to the judge to ask if he could say something after he was given the jail term, but he was ordered to leave the dock

She walked into a police station after media coverage of the 2012 convictions of a number of Asian defendants for grooming white girls for sex in the town.

She told officers that from the age of 14 she too had been repeatedly sexually groomed by a large number of men in Rochdale.

The main victim in the case said that ‘hundreds’ of men would ring her up, wanting her to go out and have sex with them, during the time she was groomed.

The offences, which also involved other under-age victims, took place in Rochdale and the surrounding area, mainly between 2005 and 2010.

Nine of the defendants were sentenced at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court today, while another man was jailed last year.

Judge John Potter said: ‘Each of the victims… was subjected to cross-examination which suggested they were not telling the truth. Each dealt with this ordeal impressively.

‘I have little doubt that each of the victims have been affected by your abuse of them to some degree, some far more than others.’

Figure 3A: Choudry Hussein, who was sentenced to 19 years for rape but predictably went on the run and is believed to have made his way to Pakistan.
Figure 3A: Choudry Hussein, who was sentenced to 19 years for rape but predictably went on the run and is believed to have made his way to Pakistan.
Figure 1B: Abid Khan, who was given 6 1/2 years.
Figure 1B: Abid Khan, who was given 6 1/2 years.

The main victim in the case gave evidence in two separate trials which lasted a total of 15 weeks.

Seven other complainants, who were aged 13 to 22 at the time of the offences, also came forward to testify, which secured convictions against a number of the defendants.

Former bus driver Ahmed, 33, of Rochdale, was found guilty of various sexual offences, including rape, conspiracy to rape and sexual activity with a child, in relation to five underage victims.

Figure 2B: Rehan Ali received a seven year sentence.
Figure 2B: Rehan Ali received a seven year sentence.

While working as a bus driver, Ahmed, then aged in his early 20s, spoke to his schoolgirl victims in a ‘highly inappropriate manner’, the court heard. He asked if one of them had a boyfriend and seemingly offered them free bus tickets.

The judge told Ahmed: ‘You objectivised your vulnerable victims so you could exploit them for your own sexual desire.’

Figure 1C: Mohammed dauood, who was sentenced to 16 years and was originally based in Burnley.
Figure 1C: Mohammed dauood, who was sentenced to 16 years and was originally based in Burnley.

He is believed to be currently in Pakistan after he absconded during his trial.

Figure 2C: David Law, found guilty and jailed for 11 years.
Figure 2C: David Law, found guilty and jailed for 11 years.

Rehan Ali, 27, of Blackley, was imprisoned for seven years and Kutab Miah, 35, of Rochdale, for nine years after both were found guilty of rape and sexual activity with a child.

Abid Khan, 39, of Liverpool, was jailed for six-and-a-half years and Mohammed Zahid, 55, of Rochdale, for five years after both were found guilty of sexual activity with a child.

Figure 4C: Mohammed Zahid, who received a few year sentence.
Figure 3C: Mohammed Zahid, who received a few year sentence.

Mohammed Dauood, 38, of Burnley, was jailed for 16 years after he was convicted of offences in relation to two victims including rape, sexual activity with a child and sexual assault.

David Law, 46, of Ilkeston, Derbyshire, was jailed for 11 years after he was convicted of conspiracy to rape.

Figure 5C: Mahfuz Rahman, who received a 5 1/2 year sentence.
Figure 4C: Mahfuz Rahman, who received a 5 1/2 year sentence.
Figure 5C: Most of the grooming took place in Rochdale in between 2005 and 2010. The victim came forward after another hearing about the abuse exposed in another trial.
Figure 5C: Most of the grooming took place in Rochdale in between 2005 and 2010. The victim came forward after another hearing about the abuse exposed in another trial.

A 40-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was jailed for 23 years after he was convicted of rape and attempting to abduct a child in relation to three victims. He will serve an additional eight years on extended licence when he is released.

Senior investigating officer Det Chief Insp Jamie Daniels said: ‘This was an extremely complex case and I want to commend the victims for the immense bravery they have shown; only with their support have we arrived at this point.

‘The process can be emotionally demanding and traumatic for the victims and we do not underestimate the courage this took.’