About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “Revealing video of Canada-based muslim strategist on how the world is being conquered for islam”

  1. Noticing in the video how ‘normal looking’ people can be ecstatic at being slaves to Allah for heavenly benefits, (with rug-butting makeup applied every morning before their wives see), it is not hard to notice Socialists are orgasmatically inclined to their universalizm of anticipated earthly benefits.

    The sexually perverted in both camps, the rejection of decency and character for a new morality unto their own laws, reveals the reproduction and establishment of resentments not known in nature.

    Islam – all women are evil. Women have half the voice of a male.
    Socialism – all men are evil. Men have half the voice of a female.

  2. As Billy Goat said a few days ago:

    “We’re not out of this yet BY A LONG SHOT. In fact, it’s just getting interesting.”

  3. I thought he made an interesting comment; Which is more humane, 80 lashes or 15 years in prison? I’m not sure but I think I might take the lashes.

  4. An old article but relevant – It is not about India v Pakistan. It ultimately is Islam versus Non-Islamic world.
    “…Pakistan’s Islamic Foundations

    The three important social demands that dominate the Islamic orthodoxy as adopted by Pakistan’s government and many other Islamic States (as opposed to alternative liberal interpretations that are subverted) are: (1) the 2-nation theory, (2) global loyalty to Islam superceding sovereignty of man-made countries, and (3) Islamic triumphalism. These are summarized below:

    1. The 2-nation theory: Pakistan was carved out of India based on the theory that Muslims require their own separate nation in order to live in compliance with Islamic Law. This theory is equivalent to: (a) segregation (neo-apartheid) by demanding a separation of socio-political jurisdiction for Muslims; and (b) Islamic exclusiveness and imposition of Islamic “Law” upon the public sphere. This is the exact opposite of both pluralism and secularism. The traumatic event that resulted from this, in India, is commonly called “The Partition.” Once the population of Muslims in a given region crosses a threshold in numbers and/or assertiveness, such demands begin. Once this ball is set in motion, the euphoria builds up into a frenzy, and galvanizes the Pan-Islamic “global loyalty” discussed in #2 below. The temperature is made to boil until Muslims worldwide see the expansion of their territory as God’s work. The US will have this experience at some point during the next few decades.

    2. Pan-Islamic loyalty superceding local sovereignty: Islamic doctrine divides humanity into two nations that transcend all boundaries of man-made countries: All Muslims in the world are deemed to be part of one single nation called dar-ul-islam (Nation-of-Islam). All non-Muslims are deemed to belong to dar-ul-harb (the enemy, or Nation-of-War). This bi-polar definition cuts across all sovereignty, because sovereignty is man-made and hence inferior and subservient to God’s political and social bifurcation. Islamic doctrine demands loyalty only to Islamic Law and not to the man-made laws of nations and states, such as USA, India, etc. Among the consequences of this doctrine is that a Muslim is required to fight on the side of a Muslim brother against any non-Muslim. This has often been invoked by Muslims to supercede the merits of a given dispute at hand. Orthodox Islam calls for a worldwide “network” of economic, political, social, and other alliances amongst the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world. Pakistan invokes this doctrine to claim Indian Muslims as part of dar-ul-islam, with Pakistan designated as caretaker of their interests. The Al Qaeda global network of terror is simply the extreme case of such a “network” mentality turning violent against the dar-ul-harb.

    3. Islamic Triumphalism: A central tenet of Islam is that God’s “nation” — i.e. the dar-ul-islam — must sooner or later take over the world. Others, especially those who are in the crosshairs, as prey at a given moment, see this as religious imperialism. Pakistan’s official account of history honors Aurungzeb because he plundered and oppressed the infidels, i.e. Hindus and Buddhists. Likewise, many other conquerors, such as Mohammed of Ghazni, are portrayed as great heroes of Islamic triumphalism. (Even Pakistan’s missile is named after an Islamic conqueror of India in the Medieval Period.) Given this divine mandate, the ethos of aggressiveness and predatory behavior is promoted and celebrated in social life, which non-Muslims see as Islamic chauvinism. September 11 was a misjudgment of timing and dar-ul-islam’s ability to take over. But any orthodox Mullah or Imam would confirm God’s edict that eventually Islam absolutely must take over the world.

    Socio-Political Consequences

    Once ingrained, these ideological essences become the contexts that define all thinking concerning society, politics, ethics, and even militancy. A sort of closed universe develops and rigidifies, and assumes a life of its own, with its internal logic and legitimacy.

    An intense identity is often programmed from childhood. For instance, history gets rewritten to fit the requirement that anything pre-Islamic is to be seen as inferior and false. In India, this legitimized the destruction of Hindu-Buddhist institutions. The past is still a threat, because it is too obviously Hindu-Buddhist. In Arabia, it caused the virtual erasure of rich pre-Islamic cultures. Indigenous art got re-branded as ‘Islamic art’, even though it was done by non-Muslims who were employed by the conquerors.

    Indian contributions in math, science, medicine, art, literature, etc. were translated by Arab and Persian scholars in the Middle Ages with explicit acknowledgment and great respect for the Indian sources, and were later re-transmitted to Europe. However, since Islam now no longer has exclusive control over India, it now claims these as “Islamic” sciences. This version of a triumphant Islamic history is promoted heavily by Arab sponsored television shows, and even on public television in the US.

    The education system of such societies brainwashes and hypnotizes young boys into dogma that either includes hatred, or can easily be turned into hatred, by pushing a few buttons. It denies them job skills for the modern era, thereby expanding the available pool of jihad mercenaries for hire.

    When Islam is in a minority and brute force power is not advisable, the Al-taqiyah doctrine legitimizes deception, if done for the larger cause of dar-ul-islam.

    All this has built a neurosis and hatred for others. There is also hatred for modernity, seeing it as evil. When the infidels start to win economically or politically, the orthodoxy preaches that Islamic people are not doing a good enough job on behalf of Allah, and must get re-energized to fight the dar-ul-harb. Such a powder keg blows up under the right conditions of stress.

    This thinking led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

    History of the Two-Nation Theory

    Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938), the leading Muslim philosopher of his time, was an Indian nationalist in his early writings. But by 1930, in his poem, The Millat, his thoughts had crystallized on Muslim separatism. He explained the concept of partition in his presidential address to the Muslim League in Allahabad in 1930: that a unitary form of government was inconceivable, and that religious community had to be the basis for identification. His argument was that communalism in its highest sense brought harmony.

    Iqbal demanded the establishment of a confederated India to include a Muslim state consisting of Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh, and Baluchistan. In subsequent speeches and writings, Iqbal reiterated the Muslim claim to nationhood “based on unity of language, race, history, religion, and identity of economic interests.”

    The name ‘Pakistan’ originated in 1933, when some Muslim students in Cambridge (UK) issued a pamphlet titled Now or Never. The pamphlet denied that India was a single country, and demanded partition. It explained the term ‘Pakistan’ as follows: “Pakistan… is… composed of letters taken from the names of our homelands: that is, Punjab, Afghania [North-West Frontier Province], Kashmir, Iran, Sindh, Tukharistan, Afghanistan, and Balochistan. It means the land of the Paks, the spiritually pure and clean.” …” Read the whole article here http://creative.sulekha.com/the-root-of-india-pakistan-conflicts_103245_blog

  5. Remember what Pak in Islam means and you get the real jist of the country name “Pak-i-stan.”
    It isn’t only India that isn’t Pak. It is all infidel lands of kafirs. And if you are not Pak this is what you are in Islam.

    “Najis Things

    Issue 84: * The following ten things are essentially najis:

    • Urine

    • Faeces

    • Semen

    • Dead body

    • Blood

    • Dog

    • Pig

    • Kafir

    • Alcoholic liquors

    • The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat…….


    Issue 107: * An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Similarly, Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards th e holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, Salat and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such.

    As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Clean (tahir/pak). Ho wever, it is better to avoid them.

    Issue 108: The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.

    Issue 109: * If the parents, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor child are all kafir, that child is najis, except when he is intelligent enough, and professes Islam. When, even one person from his parents or grandparents is a Muslim, the child is Clean (tahir/pak) (The details will be explained in rule 217).

    Issue 110: * A person about whom it is not known whether he is a Muslim or not, and if no signs exist to establish him as a Muslim, he will be considered Clean (tahir/pak). But he will not have the privileges of a Muslim, like, he cannot marry a Muslim woman, nor can he be buried in a Muslim cemetery.

    Issue 111: Any person who abuses any of the twelve holy Imams on account of enmity, is najis……”

  6. So this sack of shit has lived his adult life in Canada, teaching on the faculty of a Canadian university (“Professor of both Management and Religious Studies”), now Professor Emeritus (or is that Emir-itis?). Spawning along the way five “Canadian” children, all receiving the full benefit of the way of life he has been working the entire time to destroy. And in talks like this making no bones about it. Giving these Hassan-al-Banna-inspired lectures all over the continent. Author of a string of titles that could be Osama bin Laden’s summer reading list. And all this is okay somehow, approved, protected, even lauded in Canada, but to say anything critical of him is “Islamophobic.” Simply breathtaking.

  7. Good article on the India-Pakistan conflict and its wider implications.

    I’ve stumbled for years around usage of Pak/Paki/Pakistani. I dislike “Pakistani,” as it dignifies the signified with too many syllables, like “excrement” for “turd.” “Paki” is held to be racist, though it refers to a nationality and not a race, and any opprobrium implied is not aimed at Christians from that country. Maybe “Pak” is best as a designation for that individual who regards kafirs with more disgust than feces, urine and pig-sweat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *