About Eeyore

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

35 Replies to “Céline Pina: “What does hijab signify?””

  1. ***TOMMY’S LEGAL APPEAL…HAS BEEN CANCELLED
    video – 3 minutes 52 seconds
    The excuse? The government’s lawyers say they’re not ready. That’s a damnable lie, of course. Tommy has been languishing in prison since May 25th. The Crown Prosecution Service — what could be called the UK’s largest law firm — has had a month and a half to prepare. They have every legal expert at their disposal. They have unlimited resources. Tommy’s lawyers are ready — and his new team have only been working on the appeal for two weeks. But someone — somewhere — in the government wants Tommy to stay in jail just a little bit longer. This is a “stitch-up”, as Tommy would say. So much for the land of the Magna Carta. So much for the rule of law.

    https://www.therebel.media/help-save-tommy-robinson

  2. As in any stealth war, the point is to test the boundaries, the limits of what you might be able to achieve without being exposed. The Muhammadans have no fear of being “exposed” because the society around them, those in charge, don’t want to see.

    However, in any and all cases of Muhammadan “influence” the matter is not civil but martial … and the determination of closure should be starting at the top of the political influence level before the nation ceases to exist and the nation-state turns fully against the law-abiding citizens entirely.

  3. French Imam Says Hijab is a ’20th Century Invention’
    https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2016/05/186117/ffrench-imam-says-hijab-is-a-20th-century-invention/
    The Left’s neo-diversity symbol ‘the hijab’ was invented in the 1970s, 1338 years after the Quran was written
    https://drrichswier.com/2017/08/13/the-lefts-neo-diversity-symbol-the-hijab-was-invented-in-the-1970s-1338-years-after-the-quran-was-written/

    The act of introducing new ideas into Islam is always supposed to be forbidden, this is called a “Biddah Heresy”. Biddah is an invention or innovation by Moslems, that has never been previously mentioned anywhere in Islamic writings, or not in the koran or the Hadiths or any other ancient Islamic writings.

  4. Why does the lion piss on the bush? To mark his territory, of course. Why do the Muslims pray in the streets of Paris? Same thing. An animal could see through this ruse, why can’t the French Government? I wonder if they are aware that according to Islamic thinking once a piece of territory has been taken by Islam it is the property of the Muslims from then on and into eternity, just like Palestine and Andalusia. That means that many Muslims already believe that the street is Islamic land for all time and that should bother the French People.

    The French government should send in five-thousand men with truncheons and stun grenades to impress upon their new Muslim friends that the street belongs to the people of France, not the religion of Islam. Then they should arrest them, apprehend them all and hit them with heavy fines. If they fail to make this point the Muslims will default to the latter and will consider the street to be theirs for all time…

    • I wonder if they are aware that according to Islamic thinking once a piece of territory has been taken by Islam it is the property of the Muslims from then on and into eternity, just like Palestine and Andalusia.

      Nothing that few dozen nukes can’t solve.

  5. I don’t like the hijab, it’s bulky, and unlike the sari that Indian women wear, not very feminine. But I also don’t like short skirts up to the navel, or tops down to the navel either, they are not feminine either. I think young girls have been conditioned by our culture to sexualize themselves. However, I think there are more important things to worry about, as far as the law goes. And attacking women for wearing a hijab is counter productive not to mention a soft target. Men hold the power in Islam. If Muslim women want to rebel against wearing a hijab then they should be supported, but otherwise by putting pressure on them puts them between a rock and a hard place. In some cases it has cost them their lives. The niquab is another matter and is wrong because it conceals a person’s identity. It’s a security danger and it makes proper communication between individuals impossible.
    Also I don’t want secularists that impose their secularism on everyone else. That has gone way too far in Western Society. I call it secular fundamentalism: the idea that there must be no reference to religion in the public square. What you end up with is State religion of secularism which is the same as atheism, a belief, and is not neutral.
    Separation of State and Church originally meant and should mean there is no state religion as in the UK where the Anglican Church is the established Church and was given preference over every other belief.
    Praying in and blocking the street is something else altogether, it’s against the law, and should be stopped.
    The problem is group rights, favouring one group over another. We have enough laws already I think that should apply to each person individually and if we just stuck to those and applied them equally it would solve a lot of problems and be enough.

    I saw a quote by Winston Churchill recently, it may have been here:
    “If you stop to throw a stone at every mad dog you will never reach your destination.”

    • “I don’t like the hijab, it’s bulky and unlike the sari that Indian women wear, not very feminine…”

      The hijab is a symbol of sharia adherence even though it is extra-sharia, and hardly a fashion statement. Therefore it is a symbol of dominance and war. Soft peddling it only muddies the waters at a time when we must see clear through to the bottom.

      Putting women between a rock and a hard place may be precisely what these women need. Otherwise they have no incentive to explain their porous arguments, rationalize their second-class citizenry, and put their own stupid men on the spot. And they are hardly a soft target when they are just as capable of threatening our society. Why are they soft? Because they’re women? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. When they come to western countries there are laws and social services for them to escape their conditions. There are no excuses for them to be complicit in the hijrah if they have even an inkling of how Islam is antithetical to freedom.

      Also you sound like a bleeding heart troll when you juxtapose secularism with Islam. No comparison.

        • Winston Churchill also said, (I quote from memory)
          Show me a young Conservative, and I’ll show you someone without a heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone without a brain.”
          I’m not a liberal, I tend towards the conservative side. I don’t know how old you are, but if you are old enough to have been around in the 1960’s, you will surely realize that in many ways secularism has not been an improvement for the west.
          Another quote for you by Hilaire Belloc, a British/French Catholic writer from the last century.
          “Islam has been our worst enemy, it almost destroyed us. And there is no reason to think that if we lose the Faith, Islam will not rise again.”
          Most of Western Governments are secular. They have had an easy time pushing Christianity to the margins (largely with the cooperation or unpreparedness of Christians, and a falling away from the Faith). They don’t take religion seriously, they are religious illiterates. And they think (thought) they would have another easy time with Islam). Some have realized it’s a different ” kettle of fish”, (as we used to say). But they don’t seem to know what to do about it. And to tell the truth, in the state the west has got itself into, it’s not an easy problem to solve. Easy from an armchair. I’m a mother and grandmother and I’ve been following these things for about 12 years now. Since hearing Mark Stein speak on a talk show. I can solve all these problems in my head, I’ve given them lots of thought, but to quote Winston Churchill again:
          “It’s easy to run a country when you don’t have the responsibility.”
          Could say more. I’m just glad that people and governments are starting to stand up for themselves.

          • By the way, if you think it’s easy and ok to break up families, and for women to leave Islamic culture when they have children. You have no idea.
            Now I’ve finished!……

            • And no, as a family man, breaking up families is not the way. Breaking up western civilization also rubs me the wrong way too, so I don’t follow you on that line of thinking. However if humanity could be served by hobbling Islam by hobbling the Islamic nuclear family unit, I’d be for that.

            • I don’t give a hoot about the Muslim women they procreate like rats
              Destroy their family structure that is excellent if they dislike it they can go back to the sands

            • Accusing someone of being “secularist” is ad hominem.
              Oh, you wouldn’t know how an religiously observant person feels.

              That’s no argument, that’s a stance.

              Mohammedans are colonizing our countries by exploiting our fuzzy sentimentality. We’re so enthralled with the CONCEPT of “freedom of religion” that we’re giving in to
              THEIR religious imperative.

              Which is to take everything away from us. All we possess, all we profess.

          • EW no, I’m not a secularist. I’ve read your reply and thank you for your insight. Maybe I was too harsh too quick. Western secularism enables the rise of Islam in the west. Is this your belief?

          • Secularism like most of the problems we currently “enjoy” was started by the left to try and damage Western Civilization.

        • But that isn’t the issue.

          “Secularist” is a red herring EW threw out to make us defensive. And “going back to root causes” – in this case, leftism – is a sure way to derail a discussion.

          We’re not talking religious expression. We’re dealing with demands that we submit to dominance. Bit-by-bit, hijab to halal – they’re marking territory for their own.

          They’re using our system just as they wrote in the Explanatory Memorandum. What Communists called “entryism”.

          It’s a hostile takeover.

          Whether we are people of faith or atheists, we’ve to fight united or the West sinks altogether.

    • Dear France,
      Declare martial law and bring out the army. Remove these emboldened jihadis with extreme prejudice. Save your country.

      • I wish they would take your advice, we need to be ready for when the explosion comes because once it starts it will spread. The rioting that the left is starting in the US will spread to Canada and other nations.

  6. Video time point – 00:01:58

    This is called conditioning.

    Pavlov. Does that name ring a bell?

    Only the most honest amongst us ever will admit that the sole theme of Islam is dominance: Be it of women, the Kuffar, public spaces, young minds, or those helplessly inbred and retarded children that are about to march forth involuntarily wearing their life-rewarding, paradise-admitting bomb vests; it’s all the same thing. Eternal, perpetual, complete and total domination.

    Note: Islam’s intentional strategy of atomized or distributed (i.e., not-easily-blamable or attributable) violence will be a central component of why the entire global population of Muslims eventually comes under the West’s (fiercely sunlit) magnifying glass. Having harnessed solar nuclear processes will never mean more to this world’s future prospects.

    In their almost entirely unarmed state, the ummah will be exactly what Islam has always intended: CANNON FODDER. Which is all that Islam ever has demanded of its “Beliebers” (I dare you to look it up!).

    Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and traitor to Western Civilization. Islam will continue to ram unlimited genocidal hatred (especially Antisemitic and anti-Christian), violence, sexual abuse, paedophilia, genetic inbreeding, polygamy, animal abuse (be it halal “slaughter” or institutionalized bestiality), religious intolerance, and every other last little scrap of useless, mindless, endless killing that will not stop until the ummah has been brought up short with levels of violence that they have never even imagined.

    Please keep in mind how it is very distasteful in the extreme to even make mention of these horrible forecasts. Regardless, it always will be Islam that has obliged other thinking minds to engage in planning the end of well-over ONE BILLION PEOPLE because of a doctrine that adores the meat-grinder and eschews genuine coexistence (unlike that idiotic fecking bumper sticker).

    • That’s why the mullahs will kill protestors with gay abandon.[*] Like the Chinese at Tiananmen Square, just mow ’em down.

      Yes, eventually they’ll be overthrown. But it’ll be bloody.
      They’ve got plenty of sleepers all over the world, so we’ll feel the devil’s breath too.
      ……..
      [*] Oh, Mr. Radish, hard to resist, eh?

Leave a Reply

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

*