Homosexuality and Zionism
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
- The Bible (Leviticus 20:13)
For those who will rant and rave, waving the usual politically correct card of homophobia, to stifle any discussion on this issue, need not bother reading past this sentence. They are part of the neo-liberal cabal, who are not interested in genuine free speech, and gag the opposing view by categorising it as incitement to hate. The tactics employed are identical to the Zionist dominated media that prevents any criticism of Israel, by labelling it as anti-Semitic.
Zionist-Israel is an exception. It is the only ‘democracy’ (for Jews only) in the Middle East, and the only country that has managed to portray itself as a victim of terrorism, after slaughtering 1500 civilians in Gaza in response to a few home made devices landing in their back garden. The only country that does not have to abide by UN resolutions unlike its neighbours, it has nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and many other privileges. Like Zionist-Israel, homosexuality is also the exception from the norm! So, are there any other common traits between Zionism and the phenomenon of homosexuality?
Regardless of one’s conviction, nobody can dispute that homosexuality is self-destructive for the human race; it works against the natural process of procreation, because the semen can only function inside the vagina of a woman, and not in the rear end of another man! For sure, no society would survive, if homosexuality or celibacy became the norm. The biggest irony is homosexuals come into existence through heterosexual activity. Therefore, the constant noise about the rights of homosexuals is meaningless, without protecting the rights of heterosexuals, to whom they owe their existence. Ask the most liberal heterosexual, he or she would never want a child that has homosexual traits, as everyone has the yearning to see their grandchildren.
Similarly, Zionism is also destructive for the human race. The fundamental doctrine of Zionism is based on the servitude and if necessary, the annihilation of the non-Jews (Goyem or Gentiles). The ends justify the means, when it comes to ‘saving’ the chosen race of God. Even though Israel with its secular pretence may claim to distance itself from the nasty Talmudic Laws, but their policies at many levels are shaped by the basic Talmudic ethos of ethnic cleansing, and terrorising the non-Jews in the region. Nobody notices the edicts of the fanatical Rabbi calling for the murder of non-Jewish infants.
Let us put the debate of – is homosexuality nature or nurture – aside for the moment. There is a need to protect all minorities; however, there is clear distinction between legal protection, and aggressively encourage something. It is difficult to fathom, why homosexuality is increasingly pushed in our heterosexual faces, to the detriment of the majority and more importantly, the danger it poses to the survival of human race. Similarly, why the constant noise about the suffering of Jews in 1945, as if they have a monopoly over this issue? It was the Japanese, the Germans and the Russians who suffered most during the Second World War. If the Israeli-Zionists were really victims of a holocaust, how can they murder innocent Palestinian civilians en masse? How can victims exhibit such heartless and cruel behaviour towards innocent civilians, who had no connection with Nazi Germany?
Like it or not, the semen belongs inside the woman’s vagina, for that is the reason why the homosexuals exist. The irony is, if they want more homosexuals they need to participate in the process of procreation. Therefore, why should the rest of humanity spend time, effort and money to give them recognition and worse propagate it, when the homosexuals have ‘deliberately’ ceased to contribute in the vital role of ensuring the continuity of the human race? At best, they may claim to have some kind of handicap for which they should be given some aid, and most certainly, they are not on par with the heterosexual community, or have the chutzpah to complain about heterosexuals who are the cause of their existence.
Then they bring forward the claim of the mysterious homosexual gene. How did the liberals with their evolutionist mantra miss this? Surely, homosexuality works against the principle of natural selection as it encourages the termination of human race. If there is such a thing as the homosexual gene, then it is a ‘liability’ for the human species, it should have been eliminated by the process of natural selection long time ago.
Another way to assess any phenomena is to examine the results, so the old Biblical statement reads, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Can anyone point out a society that has flourished through homosexual activities? Does a homosexual couple provide a stable family unit? How can it? There is no outcome, like children, a real family and a future. In most cases homosexual relationships breaks, as they primarily attach themselves for sexual reasons; there is nothing else to keep them together permanently.
In fear of the label of homophobic, like the fear anti-Semitism, many remain silent, even though they despise the acts, find it repulsive. Let us be candid, for the normal heterosexuals, acts of homosexuality causes disgust; as does the killing of innocent and defenceless people by the descendent of the victims of Holocaust. From Adam to the last Prophet of God, Mohammed (saw), they were all healthy heterosexual men; all the texts of the Abrahamic faiths condemn acts of homosexuality unequivocally, and human reason tells us, homosexuality and Zionism is suicidal for the human race!
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
Published in 19th Feb 2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Friday 19 February 2010
Monday 8 February 2010
Why Does Adultery Matter in a Secular Society?
"Secularism prohibits the imposition of any religion, except the religion of secularism"
According to the UK laws, adultery is illegal, but not a criminal offence; almost all the western secular societies uphold this view. Adultery only has relevance within the institution of marriage, which is rooted in religious texts. A fundamental tenet of a secular society is that religion is reduced to a personal choice; it is the prerogative of the individual to uphold or to abandon it. Therefore, they can formally marry in a Church, or cohabit, or participate in an open relationship where adultery has no meaning.
If secular societies placed any values on the institution of marriage, it would have classed adultery as a criminal offence, like the Sharia laws. Yet, the response to the revelation of the adulterous affair of the former England Captain, John Terry, gives the impression that a crime has been committed. Furthermore, there appears to be some kind of moral indignation towards John Terry from the masses, indicated by their silence after he is removed from his position as Captain and the numerous posts on the various websites. Any impartial person would be compelled to point the blatant hypocrisy by citing the old Biblical statement, “let those without sin cast the first stone”. This sort of response reveals the twisted and contradictory nature of secularism. Consider the following points, which illustrate this innate contradiction.
• There is a relentless push towards individual freedom, which subjects them to a sexually permissive culture from the cradle to the grave. Then the liberal laws that manifest in the ethos of sexual freedom permit all kinds of sexual activity, from participating in group-sex, homosexuality to the various forms of deviant sexual practices. The Jerry Springer show may serve as a useful guide here. Throughout life, they have been trained to seek sexual fulfilment without moral restraint, but once they get married, suddenly the moral barometer is raised, and they are expected to uphold the biblical commandment of “thou shall not commit adultery”. It is safe to assume that most football players are not committed Christians, and marriage will not transform them into virtuous monogamous men, after receiving years of ‘education’ and ‘training’ on how they should mate with the opposite sex. They cannot suddenly discard their established traits and close down the hormone channels.
• How would the media have reacted, if John Terry were involved with a man rather than a woman? There would have been a lot more sympathy and understanding in fear of being labelled as a homophobic, there is a drive to make homosexuality a norm. Thus, according to the secular guide, homosexuality is considered morally acceptable, but not an adulterous heterosexual relationship. Many would argue, a sexual act between a male and female is the norm, and a necessity, to which all homosexuals owe their existence is an undisputed fact! Whereas many (if not most) people, find a sexual relationship between two males abhorrent even if they do not speak out in fear of the liberal bullies.
In 2007, three of the Manchester United players allegedly ‘roasted’ a 19-year-old girl; the entire team with the exception of Cristiano Ronaldo was at the sleazy Christmas party, there was also a serious allegation of rape. The incident was not taken seriously by the authorities, nobody was punished in anyway, the tabloids covered the incident as a bit of gossip, and the graphic description was designed to titillate the readers rather than express moral indignation; most definitely, sex sells. There are many other similar incidents, and many more that nobody notices, especially if the players are from the lower divisions.
A young footballer, with money and fame, physically in peak condition with a six-pack abdominal, makes him a valuable catch for many women. Even the talentless duo of Jedwards led to young females bearing themselves in front of their house. For many of these women, catching these players or pop stars is an instant ticket to fame and fortune, not to mention a good time as well. This sort of behaviour did not led to a media outcry, the secular message is, the Muslims should bring up their daughters with such ‘honourable’ virtues rather imprison them in their veil (Hijab)!
The competition is fierce amongst females. It reminds you of a human cattle market, the players are exerting the demand with their money and fame; the women are supplying their flesh. Nobody is forcing these individuals to behave this way; they are exhibiting what free society is about. They are having fun. Is this what Bush and Blair is exporting to the Islamic world with their bombs and bullets, hoping that Muslim women would be emancipated with such traits?
So, why should adultery matter in a society where marriage is declining? The answer is obvious - it is an act of betrayal. For those who are cohabiting through a civil partnership it depends on the initial agreement formed by the couple. Regardless, secular society teaches and encourages one to explore and expand the sexual boundaries without moral restraints, which contradicts the values of commitment to ones spouse or partner. This is like teaching a man to be greedy and ruthless, and then expect him to show generosity after he has made losses.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalview.org)
London, UK
Published on 08/02/2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
According to the UK laws, adultery is illegal, but not a criminal offence; almost all the western secular societies uphold this view. Adultery only has relevance within the institution of marriage, which is rooted in religious texts. A fundamental tenet of a secular society is that religion is reduced to a personal choice; it is the prerogative of the individual to uphold or to abandon it. Therefore, they can formally marry in a Church, or cohabit, or participate in an open relationship where adultery has no meaning.
If secular societies placed any values on the institution of marriage, it would have classed adultery as a criminal offence, like the Sharia laws. Yet, the response to the revelation of the adulterous affair of the former England Captain, John Terry, gives the impression that a crime has been committed. Furthermore, there appears to be some kind of moral indignation towards John Terry from the masses, indicated by their silence after he is removed from his position as Captain and the numerous posts on the various websites. Any impartial person would be compelled to point the blatant hypocrisy by citing the old Biblical statement, “let those without sin cast the first stone”. This sort of response reveals the twisted and contradictory nature of secularism. Consider the following points, which illustrate this innate contradiction.
• There is a relentless push towards individual freedom, which subjects them to a sexually permissive culture from the cradle to the grave. Then the liberal laws that manifest in the ethos of sexual freedom permit all kinds of sexual activity, from participating in group-sex, homosexuality to the various forms of deviant sexual practices. The Jerry Springer show may serve as a useful guide here. Throughout life, they have been trained to seek sexual fulfilment without moral restraint, but once they get married, suddenly the moral barometer is raised, and they are expected to uphold the biblical commandment of “thou shall not commit adultery”. It is safe to assume that most football players are not committed Christians, and marriage will not transform them into virtuous monogamous men, after receiving years of ‘education’ and ‘training’ on how they should mate with the opposite sex. They cannot suddenly discard their established traits and close down the hormone channels.
• How would the media have reacted, if John Terry were involved with a man rather than a woman? There would have been a lot more sympathy and understanding in fear of being labelled as a homophobic, there is a drive to make homosexuality a norm. Thus, according to the secular guide, homosexuality is considered morally acceptable, but not an adulterous heterosexual relationship. Many would argue, a sexual act between a male and female is the norm, and a necessity, to which all homosexuals owe their existence is an undisputed fact! Whereas many (if not most) people, find a sexual relationship between two males abhorrent even if they do not speak out in fear of the liberal bullies.
In 2007, three of the Manchester United players allegedly ‘roasted’ a 19-year-old girl; the entire team with the exception of Cristiano Ronaldo was at the sleazy Christmas party, there was also a serious allegation of rape. The incident was not taken seriously by the authorities, nobody was punished in anyway, the tabloids covered the incident as a bit of gossip, and the graphic description was designed to titillate the readers rather than express moral indignation; most definitely, sex sells. There are many other similar incidents, and many more that nobody notices, especially if the players are from the lower divisions.
A young footballer, with money and fame, physically in peak condition with a six-pack abdominal, makes him a valuable catch for many women. Even the talentless duo of Jedwards led to young females bearing themselves in front of their house. For many of these women, catching these players or pop stars is an instant ticket to fame and fortune, not to mention a good time as well. This sort of behaviour did not led to a media outcry, the secular message is, the Muslims should bring up their daughters with such ‘honourable’ virtues rather imprison them in their veil (Hijab)!
The competition is fierce amongst females. It reminds you of a human cattle market, the players are exerting the demand with their money and fame; the women are supplying their flesh. Nobody is forcing these individuals to behave this way; they are exhibiting what free society is about. They are having fun. Is this what Bush and Blair is exporting to the Islamic world with their bombs and bullets, hoping that Muslim women would be emancipated with such traits?
So, why should adultery matter in a society where marriage is declining? The answer is obvious - it is an act of betrayal. For those who are cohabiting through a civil partnership it depends on the initial agreement formed by the couple. Regardless, secular society teaches and encourages one to explore and expand the sexual boundaries without moral restraints, which contradicts the values of commitment to ones spouse or partner. This is like teaching a man to be greedy and ruthless, and then expect him to show generosity after he has made losses.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalview.org)
London, UK
Published on 08/02/2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Wednesday 3 February 2010
The Litmus Test for the Legality of Iraq War
“No one had attacked anyone. There wasn’t any new W.M.D. We could have taken the time and got it right”
- Claire Short
Here is the litmus test. Imagine this scenario. Tony Blair’s son is in a critical condition, and fighting for his life. He is in a luxurious private hospital, funded by his wealthy war-profiteering father, the pictures are broadcasted, and many of the Iraqi parents who lost their children or struggling to keep them alive, can see their ‘benevolent’ liberator in action. Anyway, ten leading physicians from various countries advise Blair of a certain medical operation to save his son’s life. Shortly after, Dr. Goldsmith dissents, he is a prominent doctor from an American-Israeli Hospital, and after some deliberation suggests an alternative course of action.
Which way Tony Blair is likely to go? The answer is obvious; any human being would opt for the former and go with the overwhelming majority opinion - because he would act ‘sincerely’ for the interest of his son. Any genuine father would take the decision based on his conviction of the facts, whereas a crooked father would pick an opinion to support his ulterior agenda. Like a father who may look to profit from the death of his wealthy son.
Using that litmus test on the legality of war - was Tony Blair really convinced of the wavering opinion delivered by Goldsmith at the last minute, which was at odds with the vast majority of the legal experts. It is beyond doubt that he was not looking to be persuaded, because he was already committed to the American plan. All he needed was a fig leaf to cover his private parts, so that he can do the usual war dance around the ‘Bush’, praying for a slice of the profit from the gods; Goldsmith provided that fig-leaf, which is transparent to most people, causing revulsion.
Claire Short claims she was conned. No, she conned herself in the first place. The world could see that Iraq was a broken country that did not even have a conventional force, let alone WMDs. Yet, Claire Short, sitting in the heart of the Cabinet, could not see through all the signs that she is now citing in the Chilcot Inquiry that clearly points to one thing: Blair has already made his mind up about the invasion.
Furthermore, she tried to sugarcoat her decision to remain in the Cabinet by suggesting that the neo-con Blair would get a state for the oil-less Palestinians and the UN would takeover the Iraq operation. Even in the early days, one can see Blair is more suited to be a member of the Israeli Knesset rather than a Middle East Envoy. To be candid, Claire Short succumbed to her weakness, and it is not really worth dwelling on that. To err is human; to forgive is divine and one can apply that to Claire Short.
Blair as an individual has profited from the Iraq war, and he is making good money through the recession. For sure, you will not find any unusual items on his expense claim form. Maybe, he will donate some of that money to the Iraqi children born with deformities or to the many made orphans as their parents became collateral damage. Then the media would market those images, and it might finally ‘convince’ all the sceptics that the Iraq war waged by the profit making Capitalist nations was in fact driven by altruistic reasons.
Apart from the financial costs, the lives lost on all sides, facing an economic recession, what has the invasion achieved for the UK? Had it made the country safer, meaning was it in some danger before? 7/7 dose not count as it is a consequence of the war and not a cause. If you are in doubt, just check the date of the events.
Alternatively, has Tony Blair placed UK on the radar of the Jihadist and the future Jihadist from Iraq? The children will grow up knowing the cruelty shown by the Americans and that can be understood to an extent as a reaction to 9/11. An angry America had to spill some blood in the old tradition of the Wild West, it needed to quench its thirst for vengeance. Not that American is an innocent victim, far from it; she is an arrogant one, the judge, jury and the selective executioner of UN resolutions!
But, how would the future generation of Iraqis see the British role? The UK was not attacked by 9/11 or by Iraq; if anything the British have invaded and killed thousands of Iraqis during the period of the First World War. In fact, Winston Churchill used chemical weapons on the Kurds, long before Saddam Hussein. Yet, once again, they participated in this crime of aggression with a great deal of zeal. The Blair episode reminds you of that money making kid in the class, who would team up with the biggest bully and quietly incite the bully to extort money from other children. Later in life, the money making kid would become a banker in the City or a lawyer, who always show sympathy for the Israelis! Yes, he does have a heart and some ethics!
We are no longer living in the old days of the British Empire, where massacres could be suppressed, and if it leaked, one could use ‘diplomacy’ and bribery to quieten it; then with the passage of time it would vanish from people’s memory. Today, the age of information ensures that such things will remain fresh in the minds of the future generation. We cannot alter the past, but by addressing the present, and in particular, by addressing the crime of Blair, it may help to secure the interest of our nation. The future generation of Iraqis may see that the British population have a heart, not just the millions who marched against the war, but the vast majority disagree with this arrogant and heartless war criminal, and they have tried to do some justice.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
UK, London
Published in 03/02/2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
- Claire Short
Here is the litmus test. Imagine this scenario. Tony Blair’s son is in a critical condition, and fighting for his life. He is in a luxurious private hospital, funded by his wealthy war-profiteering father, the pictures are broadcasted, and many of the Iraqi parents who lost their children or struggling to keep them alive, can see their ‘benevolent’ liberator in action. Anyway, ten leading physicians from various countries advise Blair of a certain medical operation to save his son’s life. Shortly after, Dr. Goldsmith dissents, he is a prominent doctor from an American-Israeli Hospital, and after some deliberation suggests an alternative course of action.
Which way Tony Blair is likely to go? The answer is obvious; any human being would opt for the former and go with the overwhelming majority opinion - because he would act ‘sincerely’ for the interest of his son. Any genuine father would take the decision based on his conviction of the facts, whereas a crooked father would pick an opinion to support his ulterior agenda. Like a father who may look to profit from the death of his wealthy son.
Using that litmus test on the legality of war - was Tony Blair really convinced of the wavering opinion delivered by Goldsmith at the last minute, which was at odds with the vast majority of the legal experts. It is beyond doubt that he was not looking to be persuaded, because he was already committed to the American plan. All he needed was a fig leaf to cover his private parts, so that he can do the usual war dance around the ‘Bush’, praying for a slice of the profit from the gods; Goldsmith provided that fig-leaf, which is transparent to most people, causing revulsion.
Claire Short claims she was conned. No, she conned herself in the first place. The world could see that Iraq was a broken country that did not even have a conventional force, let alone WMDs. Yet, Claire Short, sitting in the heart of the Cabinet, could not see through all the signs that she is now citing in the Chilcot Inquiry that clearly points to one thing: Blair has already made his mind up about the invasion.
Furthermore, she tried to sugarcoat her decision to remain in the Cabinet by suggesting that the neo-con Blair would get a state for the oil-less Palestinians and the UN would takeover the Iraq operation. Even in the early days, one can see Blair is more suited to be a member of the Israeli Knesset rather than a Middle East Envoy. To be candid, Claire Short succumbed to her weakness, and it is not really worth dwelling on that. To err is human; to forgive is divine and one can apply that to Claire Short.
Blair as an individual has profited from the Iraq war, and he is making good money through the recession. For sure, you will not find any unusual items on his expense claim form. Maybe, he will donate some of that money to the Iraqi children born with deformities or to the many made orphans as their parents became collateral damage. Then the media would market those images, and it might finally ‘convince’ all the sceptics that the Iraq war waged by the profit making Capitalist nations was in fact driven by altruistic reasons.
Apart from the financial costs, the lives lost on all sides, facing an economic recession, what has the invasion achieved for the UK? Had it made the country safer, meaning was it in some danger before? 7/7 dose not count as it is a consequence of the war and not a cause. If you are in doubt, just check the date of the events.
Alternatively, has Tony Blair placed UK on the radar of the Jihadist and the future Jihadist from Iraq? The children will grow up knowing the cruelty shown by the Americans and that can be understood to an extent as a reaction to 9/11. An angry America had to spill some blood in the old tradition of the Wild West, it needed to quench its thirst for vengeance. Not that American is an innocent victim, far from it; she is an arrogant one, the judge, jury and the selective executioner of UN resolutions!
But, how would the future generation of Iraqis see the British role? The UK was not attacked by 9/11 or by Iraq; if anything the British have invaded and killed thousands of Iraqis during the period of the First World War. In fact, Winston Churchill used chemical weapons on the Kurds, long before Saddam Hussein. Yet, once again, they participated in this crime of aggression with a great deal of zeal. The Blair episode reminds you of that money making kid in the class, who would team up with the biggest bully and quietly incite the bully to extort money from other children. Later in life, the money making kid would become a banker in the City or a lawyer, who always show sympathy for the Israelis! Yes, he does have a heart and some ethics!
We are no longer living in the old days of the British Empire, where massacres could be suppressed, and if it leaked, one could use ‘diplomacy’ and bribery to quieten it; then with the passage of time it would vanish from people’s memory. Today, the age of information ensures that such things will remain fresh in the minds of the future generation. We cannot alter the past, but by addressing the present, and in particular, by addressing the crime of Blair, it may help to secure the interest of our nation. The future generation of Iraqis may see that the British population have a heart, not just the millions who marched against the war, but the vast majority disagree with this arrogant and heartless war criminal, and they have tried to do some justice.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
UK, London
Published in 03/02/2010
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)