Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


On October 2, 2020 (15 Safar 1442 AH) French President Emmanuel Macron declared war on Islam. Exactly two weeks later, in what smelled like a public relations stunt, global mainstream media trumpeted the secular martyrdom of middle school teacher Samuel Paty, who according to Zionist-occupied Wikipedia “was killed and beheaded by an Islamic terrorist.” Zionist-dominated Western media claim that 18-year-old Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov killed Paty to avenge the teacher’s showing obscene and blasphemous Charlie Hebdo magazine images to his class.

Paty’s killing was perfectly timed to promote Macron’s anti-Islam campaign. Prior to the October 16 “Islamic terror beheading” Macron’s Islamophobic rampage was not particularly popular in France or anywhere else, with the possible exception of Israel. But in the wake of the anti-teacher terror stunt, a wave of Charlie Hebdo hysteria arose in support of Macron’s anti-Islam crusading. If the “Anzorov beheads Paty” incident hadn’t happened, Macron would have had to invent it.

And maybe he did invent it, just as his predecessors invented similar events. Scholars of the global deep state know that the most notorious French “Islamic terror” incidents of the recent past have all been credibly exposed as false flags. In March 2012, French President Nicolas Sarkozy (or clandestine services personnel operating on his behalf) staged “terror attacks” in Montauban and Toulouse, then executed innocent patsy Mohamed Merah in an obscenely gratuitous act of what can only be called political theater of the absurd. The Montauban and Toulouse false flag attacks, according to French historian Dr. Laurent Guyénot, were orchestrated in part to save Sarkozy’s failing re-election bid: “‘The only chance for Sarkozy to win the election is if an event outside of his campaign occurs. An international, exceptional or traumatizing event,’ said the director of L’Express shortly before the Toulouse killings.” Thanks to the Montauban and Toulouse false flags, Israeli puppet Sarkozy was re-elected, and France was stampeded into showing a frenzy of symbolic support for the Zionist state and its “war on terror.”

Likewise, in 2015, French President François Hollande, another Zionist stooge, was in deep political trouble, when suddenly two false flag terror events miraculously (if temporarily) saved him: The Charlie Hebdo attacks of January 7, 2015, followed by the November 13 Bataclan events. (Follow the above links to my edited books providing evidence that both incidents were false flags.) The 2015 terror events, like those of 2012, triggered pre-orchestrated outpourings of support for Zionism and conflations of French and Israeli interests.

Fast-forward to October 2020. Macron, exposed as a Rothschild operative by the Yellow Vest movement, had become the most unpopular president in modern French history. In a desperate bid to save his political career, Macron, following in the footsteps of Sarkozy and Hollande, decided to rally public opinion by whipping up hatred of a scapegoat: the religion of Islam and the people who practice it. And like Sarkozy and Hollande, Macron “fortuitously” benefitted from a bloody terror attack, without which his career would have quickly crashed and burned.

The alleged assassin of Paty, Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov, will never be able to protest his innocence, tell us his side of the story, or implicate others in the attack. He was gunned down by police shortly after the killing, supposedly while shooting at them with an air gun and waving a knife.

Oddly, almost all of the alleged culprits in the false flag attacks listed above, as well as the related false flags in 
Copenhagen (February 14, 2015) and the Brussels Airport (March 22, 2016) were killed by police rather than arrested and interrogated. If they had been real terrorists, the authorities would have done their best to capture them alive and interrogate them in hopes of taking down the groups to which they belonged. But if the authorities themselves are running the “terrorists,” then killing the designated patsy makes good sense. That way the patsy won’t be able to reveal embarrassing information—such as his recruitment by the intelligence services, his travel to Syria and neighboring countries on behalf of those intelligence services, his theatrical posing as a “radical Muslim Daesh sympathizer” in return for wads of taxpayers’ cash, and so on.

Some patsies, of course, are merely dupes—not-so-bright people who are emotionally manipulated by experts into doing dirty deeds. Anzorov, we are told, was “radicalized” and  sent to kill and behead Paty by various associates at a pro-Daesh mosque. Are we seriously supposed to believe there is a “pro-Daesh mosque” in Paris that is not infiltrated and surveilled by French, NATO (American), and Israeli intelligence?! (After all, Daesh is a Western mercenary group created by intelligence agencies to attack NATO’s and Israel’s enemies in the Muslim East.) Now that Anzorov has been permanently silenced, we will never know for sure whether the people the French government says incited him to kill Paty are really the culprits, or whether someone else—perhaps a clandestine services specialist in manipulating people with the aid of drugs and hypnosis—was actually responsible.

In any case, using historical context and common sense as our guide, we can say with 80-90% certainty that the real killer and beheader of Paty was Macron, who launched a political war on Islam on October 2 and got the publicity stunt he needed two weeks later. Likewise, Macron is the chief suspect in the murder of three people, one of whom was beheaded, in a church in Nice on October 29, by the usual “Islamic terrorist out of central casting”—allegedly a Tunisian named Brahim Aouissaoui, who, as usual, yelled “Allahu Akbar” while spilling blood.  No conceivable motive has been offered in the official narrative of the attack. It is simply taken for granted by the 
Zionists who dominate Western media that Muslims are, or must be portrayed as, lunatics who randomly slaughter churchgoers for no reason.

It is noteworthy that in 2020, like in 2015-2016, spectacular cartoon-motivated false flags in Paris were followed by completely gratuitous attacks in Nice. In January 2015, 17 people were killed in Paris, and 130 in November. Then in July 2016, a crazed Muslim truck driver in Nice was blamed for killing 87 and wounding 434. Interestingly, Israeli clandestine services propagandist Einat Wilf’s husband, a certain Richard Gutjahr, seemingly exhibited foreknowledge of the Nice truck attack as he was set up on a balcony to begin filming the truck before the mayhem started. Then Gutjahr and his daughter miraculously turned up in Munich exactly one week later to provide the earliest footage of the terror attack at the Olympia-Einkaufszentrum. Few believe Gutjahr’s claims that his presence at two huge attacks in one week, while married to an Israeli black ops queen, was a coincidence. When Gutjahr sued German journalist Gerhard Wisnewski for stating the obvious, a German court slapped Gutjahr down, quashing his libel lawsuit.

So what are we to make of the post-9/11 false flag epidemic? Researching false flags can be time-consuming, and
talking and writing about them can get you banned from what passes for polite Western society. But we need to know what we are up against. The unfortunate truth is that the West
is far more decadent and demonic than most Muslims realize. Those who don’t know that the “Islamic terror” trope was invented by Benjamin Netanyahu at the 1979

 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT) and promulgated by Western intelligence, led by Mossad, by way of a long list of spectacular terror events blamed on Muslims but engineered by their enemies, are intellectually disarmed and in no position to fight back against the forces of evil. If we give the slightest indication of accepting the false reality that they have created,
we are acceding to do battle on their turf according to their (rigged) rules and their choice of weapons.

Capitulating to the mainstream narrative means defeat. Instead we must listen to the Qur’an: “No! We hurl truth against falsehood and it bashes its brains out, and behold—it vanishes.” (21:18).


French President Emmanuel Macron announced, with quasi religious fervor, a new “charter of republican values” which  the Muslims of France would be compelled to sign up to. Withthe subsequent spate of violence in France the president has squarely blamed Islam for France’s problems and is now ordering Muslims to follow his definition of Islam.

It is here that the conundrum of Europe lies that contrary to the denials of its adherents, 
liberal secularism is in fact a religion and although it fails to answer the most important existential questions, it nonetheless defines for its believers a specific world view contrary 
to all other views. Central to this world view is the belief that regulations derived from the minds of men are superior to those prescribed by the infinite mind of the Creator, hence liberal secularism relegates all temporal regulation of man’s conduct to simply an appeal to morality and ethics.
Like Catholicism (its Western predecessor), liberal secularism has a penchant for forcible conversion to its faith. The inquisitions of European Catholicism and in fact Protestantism tolerated no dissent nor did they allow the subsistence of a belief other than that prescribed by the authorities.
Be it Catharism, Protestantism or Islam, European authorities have long sought to control the beliefs of their citizens with imprisonment, torture, economic marginalisation and expulsion; these are the favoured means to pursue their campaigns against what they considered heresy to their faith. Catholic Monarchs from Spain to Italy required all those who were subject to their rule to renounce their former faith and be baptised as Catholic under pain of execution or worse.

After a brief period of relative calm, starting with the city of Grenada, eventually all 600,000 Muslims remaining in the Iberian Peninsula, after the end of the Spanish monarchies Reconquista, were either forcibly converted to Christianity, killed or expelled 
by royal edict; effectively eliminating the presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula. Forced conversion was never enough to satisfy the homogeneity required by European authorities.  The inquisition examined the minutiae of the private and public lives of those forced to convert looking for even the smallest hint that conversion to the Catholic faith was not sincere. Failure to convince inquisitors often resulted in excruciating punishment and death. It must be borne in mind that although individuals were often the target of these inquisitions, the intention was never to punish or reform the individual. Rather, the intended outcome was  to terrorise a community. The Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard inquisitorial manual) states: “for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good 
of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit”.

It is assumed that post-Enlightenment Europe had dispensed with the notion of forced homogeneity and conversion to a state sanctioned religion, but developments in Austria, 
France and many other European countries indicate otherwise. Just like their Catholic predecessors, uniformity in belief seems to be a requirement for their secular successors with notions of a political role for Islam considered heretical for many of the same reasons. In Austria, the Islam Act of 2015 effectively created a state sanctioned version of Islam, one that was devoid of any notion that Islam may provide a political, social and economic system that can provide human kind with an alternative to the vagaries of liberal, secular and capitalist governance.   

The French state holds itself as a vanguard in the fight against the ‘heresy’ of political Islam, from state sanctioned insults against the Prophet Muhammad (?) to an edict and ultimatum from the French President that calls on Imams to sign up to a charter of “Republican values”, whose main tenant of faith is that Islam does not constitute a political force.
The French state effectively seeks to convert the population of Muslims in France to a secular liberal state sanctioned version of Islam.  Just as the Inquisition sought to pressure a community to conform, with gratuitous displays of brutality, the French state, through the draconian law on the dissolution of organisations, seeks to terrorise communities by punishing organisations that refuse to yield to the official line.

Just like the Inquisition enquired into the minutiae of the private lives of those compelled to convert: the opinions of children expressed at school are used to gauge the private thought of their parents; with sanctions including fines, and the severance of family ties between children and their parents imposed on those considered heretical to secular beliefs and values. Much like its Catholic predecessor, the modern secular liberal inquisition against Islam is predicated on the same impotence that afflicted Catholicism, namely an inability to intellectually confront the sublimity of the  Islamic creed; resorting to draconian measures -this is the only respite an intellectually feeble belief can attain.







7 Nov 2020 | Allama khadim Hussain

Messages In This Thread
RE: HOW GLOBAL ANTI-MUSLIM BIGOTRY BECAME ACCEPTABLE - by globalvision2000administrator - 11-01-2020, 09:59 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 20 Guest(s)