"Inciting Hatred"

[antineoETC]

From ARTICLE ON THE MAIN SITE:

In 2018, The European Court of Human Rights ruled that criticism of the Prophet Muhammed constitutes incitement to hatred and therefore is not protected free speech...

The case involved Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian woman who in 2011 was convicted of “denigrating religious beliefs” after giving a series of lectures presenting the historical truth of the pedophile practices of the founder of Islam with his third wife, Aisha; most hadiths (collections of traditions containing the words and actions of Muhammed) confirm that Aisha was a prepubescent girl of nine years of age when Muhammed, age fifty-six, consumed his marriage with her.

In a deranged way the European Court of Human Rights' ruling in the afforementioned legal case was a recognition that non-Muslim Europeans, if they are made aware of the more unedifying details of Muhammad's conduct and pronouncements, are bound to develop a negative view of Islam's prophet and of the religion he founded. Furthermore, the ECHR understands that negativity towards Islam will inevitably translate into negativity towards its followers. This is the "incitement" they refer to. After all, those of us who hate the racist ideology of the Ku Klux Klan tend also to hate klansmen. Even if those Klansmen have not personally been involved in racist violence they are rightly regarded, by virtue of their willing membership of the Klan, as being complicit in that violence.

However, so morally confused have Europe's "progressive" legalists and politicos become that they regard justifiable abhorrence of Islam as itself something abhorrent.

This reason for this is clear: Muslims are overwhelmingly non-white and therefore, in the progressive world view, victims by definition. This view of Muslims as victims, rather than willing perpetuators of a bigoted, intolerant and violent ideology which dehumanizes and incites violence against those of us who choose not to accept its precepts, renders progressives incapable of clearly seeing Islamic atrocity-perpetration for what it is. This is starkly illustrated in the case of Shamima Begum, a "British" Muslim woman who chose to travel to Syria to aid and abet an armed gang of mass murderers and rapists whose goal she knew was to extend its rampage of murder and rape over the whole earth. However, to UK progressives she HAD to be, by virtue of her brown skin and hijab, a victim - in her case of "online grooming". "The poor thing..bring her peace. Bring her joy. She is young. She is only a girl. Bring her home!" they demandingly sing.

[pr126]

However, so morally confused have Europe's "progressive" legalists and politicos become that they regard justifiable abhorrence of Islam as itself something abhorrent.

They are not morally confused, they are scared sh!tless from the Muslims. They are the real "islamophobes".
All they have to do is read chapter 9 in the Quran.

[antineoETC]

They are not morally confused, they are scared sh!tless from the Muslims. They are the real "islamophobes".

You could well be right.

[sum]

Will the ECHR comment on all the hatred coming from the Koran towards non-muslims? Is this acceptable?

Will the ECHR admit that the Koran is seriously anti-Semitic? Is this acceptable?

Does the ECHR realise that they are all the vilest of all creatures? Is this acceptable?

Is every aspect of Islam beyond criticism? Really?

I agree with pr126.

Ali Sina once said that to understand Islam you have to understand and copy Muhammad as Islam is simply the living of life as Muhammad did and said.

sum

[antineoETC]

Will the ECHR comment on all the hatred coming from the Koran towards non-muslims? Is this acceptable?

Will the ECHR admit that the Koran is seriously anti-Semitic? Is this acceptable?

Does the ECHR realise that they are all the vilest of all creatures? Is this acceptable?

Pointing out the hate speech in the Quran is itself regarded as "hate speech" in today's Kafkaesque EU. I would imagine you would get fined or jailed under "hate" speech laws of you said these things in the wrong place. The ECHR would support your conviction.

[pr126]

The Muslim migrants are the mercenaries of the left. They have a common goal.
To eradicate western civilization, ready for globalization.

[antineoETC]

The Muslim migrants are the mercenaries of the left.[/url]

I would say it's the other way round.

They have a common goal. To eradicate western civilization, ready for globalization.[/URL]

The "globalist" goal of of Islam is global shariah. I really don't think the left share that goal. Leftists and progressives in general seriously believe that most Muslims practice a different, personal, sharia-free, Islam from the Islam of the "Islamists".

What do you mean when you use the term "globalization" btw?

[pr126]

What do you mean when you use the term "globalization" btw?

The UN is attempting to run the world. Agenda 2030, "Sustainable Development", The Great Reset.







I believe that climate change, covid-19 were manufactured to further this agenda.

Also, Trump was a "speedbump" to this plan and will have to be replaced by Biden who is completely in accordance with the globalist.
Dark times are ahead.

[antineoETC]

The UN is attempting to run the world. Agenda 2030, "Sustainable Development", The Great Reset.

So you're using it in a different sense from its original meaning.

I believe that climate change, covid-19 were manufactured to further this agenda.

You mean the Covid-19 virus doesn't exist?

You don't believe Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse" gas?

[pr126]

You mean the Covid-19 virus doesn't exist?

It does exist. Very much so. But was it an accident or was it on purpose?

Anyway, the conditioning of the masses is in progress.
Lockdowns, masks, obey, or else.
Unless you are demonstrating for BLM or anything like it. Then you are exempt.

Locking down means the economy is circling the drain. Businesses failing, unemployment, etc.
Globally.

Climate change has happened for millions of years, this time it is a man-made effect.
Is it really? Or is it part of an agenda? Scientists argue about it. Who to believe?

[antineoETC]

It does exist. Very much so. But was it an accident or was it on purpose?

Donald Trump calls it the "China Virus", so if it was on purpose it was on purpose by the Chinese. Why would they f.ck their own economy?

Anyway, the conditioning of the masses is in progress. Lockdowns, masks, obey, or else.

I wear a mask in shops etc although the chances that I have got the virus are virtually zero. However, my understanding is that, while simple masks do not offer any real protection from inhaling virus they do provide a decent barrier to exhaled virus getting into the air. If I don't wear a mask I can't really expect others who may be shedding virus particles to do so. If enough people flout the law then it will be unenforceable of course. But why, for the sake of a minor inconvenience, would anybody want to risk flooding the hospitals with seriously ill people who would, moreover, pose a serious health risk to nurses and other hospital staff - which itself would have knock on effects on patient care generally? A relative of mine caught Covid in hospital. Even if you think severe Covid sufferers should be kept out of hospital and allowed to die horribly at home, other less adversely affected carriers are still going to take it into the hospitals.

Unless you are demonstrating for BLM or anything like it. Then you are exempt.

Agreed.

Locking down means the economy is circling the drain. Businesses failing, unemployment, etc.

Well the virus could be allowed to rip which you seem to be advocating. Would you agree to stay away from hospital and forego medical care if you develop serious symptoms, so as not to risk infecting hospital staff and vulnerable patients,?

Climate change has happened for millions of years, this time it is a man-made effect.
Is it really? Or is it part of an agenda? Scientists argue about it. Who to believe?

I am not aware of any real scientist who questions that Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse" gas without the presence of which in the atmosphere the earth would freeze over. If, in the near future, the polar ice caps melted enough to significantly raise sea levels and permanently innundate large populated areas it could never be 100% proved that manmade global warming was to blame. You only have correlations and probabilities.

But energy use is related to natural resource use in general. Energy from fossil fuels is being used to destroy natural habitats which, if it continues, will lead to mass extinction of wildlife. Do you think this process should continue?

[pr126]

But energy use is related to natural resource use in general. Energy from fossil fuels is being used to destroy natural habitats which, if it continues, will lead to mass extinction of wildlife. Do you think this process should continue?

Well, the alternative is to go back to the 18th century. No fossil fuels to be used. Ever again.
Horses and carts. Plows with bullocks. Candles. No electricity, computers, Internet. Wouldn't it be lovely?

The Green New Deal from AOC? No cars, airplanes, rebuild every building on the planet?
Also, AOC said that in 12 years we all going to be dead. Unless we do the Green New Deal.
Since I cannot imagine that this would happen, we are already doomed.
OK, that scares the bejesus out of some people. It meant to do.

Sea levels will rise. That's why Obama brought a 15 million mansion on Marthas Vineyard.

But, will China, Russia, and others do the same? I think not.
So why just the US, Canada, the EU? Would that alone save the planet?

[antineoETC]

Well, the alternative is to go back to the 18th century. No fossil fuels to be used. Ever again.

I'm talking about natural resource use in general. Reducing extraction of mineral and biological resources to levels that do not exterminate the wildlife will reduce overall energy use. If you're implying that our prosperity depends on the annihilation of the world's natural habitats then that begs the question of what happens to our prosperity when there is nothing left to annihilate. What happens?

Sea levels will rise. That's why Obama brought a 15 million mansion on Marthas Vineyard.

Maybe he does not believe it himself. Look a few years back I saw a news report where a local politician in Alaska was eagerly anticipating the benefits to his town that would result from a Northwest passage opening up as s result of melting polar ice.

But, will China, Russia, and others do the same? I think not.

It is true that a lot of this has moved out of the control of the west as a result of Globalisation in the original sense of the word. The transformation of China into a mega-polluting economic behemoth was the work of western (mainly US) capitalists who shut down industry in their own countries to take advantage of China's more "business-friendly" environment. That is why Trump's complaints about China's unfair trade practices are so hypocritical. It was Thatcher who destroyed the UK coal industry for no other reason than to break the mining unions.

So why just the US, Canada, the EU? Would that save the planet?

The world economy needs to be deglobalized. It is absurd that we send our waste paper and other trash thousands of miles to recycle it because we haven't got the facilities. This will require protectionist economic policies and import controls. Also, it is essential we stop dumping plastic in the ocean and reduce plastic production which will itself reduce energy consumption.

[pr126]

Great Reset Unleashes Global Socialism.

Halleluja! The Utopia is coming. Or maybe not.

Trump is standing in their way. That is why they want him gone.


"We'll have to do a better job at welcoming and integrating refugees".
Question: If the whole world is a utopia, why will there be still refugees?



New slogan: You'll own nothing
And you'll be happy.

I believe that this didn't work out too well in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela.
But this time we'll do it right.

[Ariel]

Is Prins Charles going to give his own capital to the poor refugees ?

[sum]

Hello antineoETC

You appear to regard co2 as a greenhouse gas but did not qualify this by saying how much you believe that it increases global warming. Do you regard co2 as very significant regarding global warming?

I have seen graphs that show that the co2 levels rise AFTER the rise in temperature in the cyclical nature of global warming and not before. One effect of rising co2 that has been shown is that the earth is now "greener" than it was before the levels of co2 rose. Extra co2 is used in horticulture to increase productivity.

It is now considered that clouds are the main cause of global warming - apart from the sun.

I totally support the movement to control pollution and wanton destruction of habitat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4 Well worth a read.

sum

[antineoETC]

You appear to regard co2 as a greenhouse gas

This is the scientific consensus brought about reached through repeated experiments.
I have never even personally conducted an experiment to prove that CO2 is a"greenhouse" gas - no more than I have conducted an experiment to gain first hand proof that bleach is poisonous. In the case of bleach I could just take a swig and see what happens. However, the consensus is so widespread that bleach is poisonous that I am sure that if I try and find out for myself by drinking some that I stand a serious risk of dying and that the more I drink the greater the chance of this outcome.

but did not qualify this by saying how much you believe that it increases global warming.

I believe there is a positive correlation between rising CO2 levels, rising global temperatures and increasing extremes of weather and other natural phenomena like fires

Do you regard co2 as very significant regarding global warming?

Yes.

I have seen graphs that show that the co2 levels rise AFTER the rise in temperature in the cyclical nature of global warming and not before.

I am sure there are all sorts of processes going on that affect the temperature and climate positively or negatively. The atmosphere is an incredibly complex system. However, I have never understood why CO2 should have a peculiar ability to have ZERO effect regardless of how much is pumped into the atmosphere.

One effect of rising co2 that has seen shown is that the earth is now "greener" than it was before the levels of co2 rose. Extra co2 is used in horticulture to increase productivity.

How can it be said that the earth is "greener" when the area under natural forest and other habitats is constantly reducing?

It is now considered that clouds are the main cause of global warming - apart from the sun.

Carbon dioxide is not the most powerful greenhouse gas by a long stretch. However, the scientific consensus is that without its presence in the atmosphere the earth would freeze over. This is impossible to prove beyond all doubt as it is not feasible to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere. If it was possible to do this quickly and cheaply then it would still be foolish to do so because of the risk that earth might indeed freeze over. However we can logically deduce from this premise that the less CO2 in the atmosphere the lower the planetary temperature will be and the more CO2 the higher the temperature will be. The higher the temperature the greater the rate of evaporation of water from the earth's surface. The more water vapor in the earth's atmosphere the more global warming. As I have written above we can see from the examples of Mercury and Venus that aside from proximity to the sun, planetary temperatures are governed by the presence or lack of an atmosphere and the composition of that atmosphere. Venus is warmer than the earth primarily because it is closer to the sun. However, it is hotter than Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, because it has a thick atmosphere which is mainly composed of CO2.

[sum]

Hello antineoETC

Did you have chance to look at the link that I provided?

sum

[antineoETC]

Hello antineoETC

Did you have chance to look at the link that I provided?

sum

You will always have maverick scientists who go against the majority opinion. Sometimes they are right, as in the case of the theory of plate tectonics, which was originally dismissed as ludicrous. Sometimes, as in the case of the link between lung cancer and smoking "maverick" scientists are prostituting themselves to commercial interests. Like the global warming issue establishing the link between lung cancer and smoking is heavily dependent on statistical analysis. Most of us do not have the time, or even the intellect, to trawl through reams of graphs and data and have to make a judgement bearing in mind such matters as scientists potentially being "bought" by fossil fuel interests, as they were by tobacco interests. Anybody truly interested in the science would accept that, if we are going to use the atmosphere as a test tube, there should be a prolonged period of CO2 reduction to see if there is a measurable effect. Climate change "sceptics" generally have an ideological agenda and are not in the slightest interested in the science.