The New York Times has finally found a victim of Islamic aggression in Nigeria worth reporting on: homosexuals. In a big spread complete with pictures appearing last week, the NYT’s Adam Nossiter wrote “Wielding Whip and a Hard New Law, Nigeria Tries to ‘Sanitize’ Itself of Gays.”
While it’s all well and good to expose the persecution of any group, why does the NYT remain silent about the much more endemic and savage jihad to “sanitize” Nigeria of Christians—a jihad that has seen countless Christians butchered and countless churches destroyed?
A 2012 meeting of Nigerian church heads concluded that “the pattern of these killings [of Christians] does suggest to us a systematic ethnic and religious cleansing.”
Among other things in the group’s bid to cleanse the Muslim-majority north of all Christian presence, it has threatened to poison the food eaten by Christians and “to strike fear into the Christians of the power of Islam by kidnapping their women.” The group frequently storms areas where Christians and Muslims are intermingled—from villages to colleges—and singles the Christians out before slitting their throats.
In 2011 hundreds of Christians were killed and 430 churches destroyed or damaged. In 2012, 900 Christians were slaughtered. Indeed, of all Christians killed around the world in 2012, 70% were killed in the west African nation. In 2013, 612 Christians were killed and some 300 churches destroyed. The year 2014 promises to be the same. Just the other day, over 50 Christians were slaughtered by “Allahu Akbar” screaming jihadis.
Thus, from a purely demographic point of view, we may deduce that for every one man who gets exposed as a homosexual in the privacy of his own home, and killed for it, thousands of Christians expose themselves as infidels whenever they openly congregate and worship inside churches, as they do every Sunday, and get killed for it.
Based on numbers alone, then—assuming the NYT can agree that all human lives are equal, that the life of the Christian is equal in value to the life of the homosexual—the dramatically much bigger story has long been the relentless and genocidal jihad on Nigeria’s millions of Christians.
But of course, it’s not surprising that the NYT in general, reporter Adam Nossiter in particular, are biased concerning whose plight to highlight. The NYT and Nossiter are the very ones who, on December 25, 2011—the day after Boko Haram bombed several churches during Christmas Eve services, leaving some 40 dead—published a spread equivocating the truth concerning the Muslim persecution of Christians in the African nation.
Then, on Christmas Day, 2011, the NYT’s Nossiter declared:
The sect, known as Boko Haram, until now mostly targeted the police, government and military in its insurgency effort, but the bombings on Sunday represented a new, religion-tinged front, a tactic that threatens to exploit the already frayed relations between Nigeria’s nearly evenly split populations of Christians and Muslims…(emphasis added).
“Until now”? The fact is Boko Haram had been terrorizing and killing Nigerian Christians and destroying their churches several years before the 2011 Christmas church bombings. Indeed, Christmas Eve 2010—one year to the day before the 2011 Christmas Eve church attacks—Boko Haram bombed several churches, killing 38 Christian worshippers.
Thus Nossiter’s characterization of the 2011 attacks as “represent[ing] a new, religion-tinged front” is not only inaccurate but unconscionable.
Moreover, whereas the NYT’s Nossiter asserted that there are “already frayed relations” between Nigeria’s Christians and Muslims, he talks of no “frayed relations” between Muslims and homosexuals: he correctly knows that the “fraying” comes from one direction.
And it’s the same concerning Nigeria’s Muslims and Christians—the “fraying” comes from one direction. Yet, due to Nossiter’s prevarications, the reader is left with the impression that Nigeria’s Christians and Muslims are equally motivated by religious hostility—even as one seeks in vain for Christian terror organizations that bomb mosques in Nigeria every Friday to screams of “Christ is Great!”
When talking about Boko Haram’s jihad on Christians, the NYT’s Nossiter managed to insert another mainstream media favorite: the “poverty-causes-terrorism” meme: “The sect’s attacks [on Christian churches] have been further bolstered by festering economic resentment in the impoverished and relatively neglected north, which has an exploding birthrate, low levels of literacy and mass unemployment.”
Needless to say, when writing about the persecution of homosexuals, “festering economic resentment in the impoverished and relatively neglected north”—precisely where homosexuals are most persecuted—is never cited as a contributing factor.
Such are the ways that “reality” is created or evaded by the mainstream media and, from there, to the unsuspecting masses of the West. The script must always prevail—reality be damned.
Thank you Mr. Ibrahim. Keep the news and articles coming, your work is not ignored. It is indeed upsetting but we must continue to spread the truth of these atrocities throughout the U.S. and beyond.
Thanks, Raymond. We who watch these things have known for years of the senseless and wanton slaughter of innocents at the hands of muslims. What is unconscionable is that so many Americans pay any attention at all to the NYT, and so many let them get away with their drivel.
As usual your bravery and courage in being one of the few truth tellers in exposing this ‘religion of peace’ for what it really is. It is articles such as yours which should be front page in the NYT, but won’t, for in truth newspapers such as these are really just rags!~
COME ON, RAY!
IS THERE A GOD?
WHAT KIND OF GOD IS HE/SHE/IT?
DOES IT CARE ABOUT JUSTICE & CRIME?
OR IS IT TOTALLY INDIFFERENT TO THE UNIVERSAL MESS?
HUMANS ARE MORTAL – GODS ARE IMMORTAL!
IF THEY ARE INDIFFERENT TO WHAT IS HAPPENING ON EARTH, THEN WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR THEOLOGY!
THE JEWISH BIBLE IS THE ORIGINAL PROTOCALS OF ZION.
JUST READ GENESIS 47 & YOU WILL SEE WHO CREATED THE TOTALITARIAN STATE.
You can take your Jew Hate and choke on it, maggot. You are not welcome here among good human beings.
YO HOMER,
THE HEBREW HEATHEN RELIGION
SEX WORSHIP AND IDOLS
The first that we know of the Hebrew Yahweh, after the fabled Flood of Noah and the fabulous Tower of Babel, is his appearance to the
Chaldean heathen Abram at Haran, telling him to move on west to the land of Canaan, which Yahweh then and there promised to give to Abram and his descendants as an inheritance and possession forever (Genesis. 12: 1-3 ). With Abram we get our first Biblical initiation into the religion of the Semitic peoples and knowledge of the forms and ceremonies of their worship of El, Bel, or Baal, as the same deity might be called in their closely allied vocabularies.
In the Hebrew language, and throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, there is no word meaning “religion.” The nearest approximation to the concept is the oft-repeated phrase “the fear of Yahweh.” This priest-inspired fear was the only basis for the hated Yahweh — cult which the priests strove to impose on the Baal-worshipping Israelites, who “feared Yahweh, and served their own gods” (2 Kings 17: 33, 39 ),
and “did not believe in Yahweh their God” (17: 14 ).
It is important to fully understand this common Semitic religion and its forms of worship, which we shall see continued unchanged all through Bible times down to the end of the Hebrew record. The Hebrew Scriptures, in this respect, are certainly a revelation, in a sense all too
little known to the casual reader or hearer of the Word of God.
PHALLISM, OR SEX-WORSHIP
The first notion of a supreme creator among early peoples was the great and glorious sun, giving light and heat and life; all early peoples, including the Hebrews, worshipped the sun, the beautiful, visible, shining agency of creation, as they did to the end, and as some primitive peoples do to this day.
Life was a wonderful thing to them, and creation the great miracle. Man discovered in himself the power to reproduce this miracle of
creation, to recreate life; and the organ of procreation became from the earliest times an object of veneration and of worship, as the human representative of the divine Creator and Life-giver. The woman, too, or “womb-man” (as the derivation of the Anglo-Saxon word suggests), was an indispensable cooperator in this work of wonder, and almost equal veneration was paid to the organ by which she participated in the creative work and brought forth life. “Eve” was “Life” from the beginning of the human species.
“And the man called his wife’s name Havvah [Eve], because she was the mother of all living” (Genesis. 3: 20).
Hence, the human organs of life, symbolized as the “staff of life” and the “door of life,” through which life entered and issued, were all through ancient history, Biblical and profane, and are at present among many peoples, sacred objects of worship.’ Not only was it the
soul of the Semitic religion, but of the religions of Egypt,
[The Encyclopedia Biblica speaks of “the special sacredness of the generative organs,” and says: “The organ of it in man could by the primitive Semites be taken as symbolizing the deity” (Vol. 3: col. 3453 ).]
India, Greece, Rome, all Europe, and all primitive America . Its
emblems have been unearthed in Missouri
.
We have many early Biblical illustrations of this ancient, Hebraic, Semitic, universal phallic worship. All the ancient monuments, as well as Hebrew Scripture, testify to the same customs. In Genesis, of the reputed sons of Shem, son of Noah, one was Asshur (Genesis. 10:
22 ). This phallic name signifies, more or less, happy, fortunate, upright, erect — unus cui membrum erectus est, vel fascinum ipsum. Asshur went forth, we are told, out of that land, “and builded Nineveh
,” and founded the great kingdom of Assyria , which perpetuates his name, for its name in Assyrian, and in the Bible, is Asshur.
Asshur, or Asher, as the triune God was called in their mythology, became deified; he represented the virile agency of creation, and was the special divinity of the Assyrians. His divine consort, Ishtar or Ashtoreth, was the deified personification of the female principle of creation. The idolic symbol under which they were worshipped was the Asherah, representing the creative union of Bel, or Baal, and Ashtoreth, and typifying “happiness.”
And other than as a mean to express your Jew hate, how does anything you plagiarized from other people’s writing on ancient religion have anything whatsoever to do with the pro-Muslim bias of the New York Times?
JEWS MUST LIVE
by Samuel Roth
Chapter IV
JEW-HATRED AS A NATURAL INSTINCT
But what sort of speech is this for a Jew, you are probably
asking yourself, by this time? I can see the question half-glimmering in your eyes. My answer must be steel set in granite. The dew of compassion has entirely dried up in my bowels. I am myself a Jew, I know it. But I am a Jew
who has been brought to the point where he so loathes his people that he thinks in terms of their destruction. No, it has not escaped me that the destruction of Israel would mean my own end, too. I would not want to survive in a world without Jews. Yet, by God, I don’t know how I shall ever again contentedly live with them: I pray for my own effacement as fervently as I pray for theirs. This is a
work of terror, and I am trying to make a terribly good job of it. I have taken out the old Jewish carcass to expose it in the sun. I shall rub it till every sore on it shines like a planet of light.
I know how well the Jews have earned the hatred which is in
my heart towards them. I do not doubt that they have earned in equally good measure the hatred which the nations entertained towards them since records of
such international courtesies have been made. Anti-Semitism is a natural effect of a social cause. I cannot understand why such a deep mystery is made of this simple cause.
The causes of anti-Semitism lie in the very deepest recesses of human nature. They are like pebbles at the bottom of a very deep stream. But the waters of the stream are clear and I have no difficulty making them out.
The first cause of Jew-hatred goes back to the nature of
Jewish leadership, a black veil on the conscience of the race. The second goes back to the nature of the people itself, and it is an evil no less foul. The first appears to be an evil without remedy. But the second does not seem to me
impossible to deal with.
Beginning with the Lord God of Israel himself, it was the successive leaders of Israel who one by one foregathered
and guided the tragic career of the Jews – tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighbouring nations who have suffered them. But we must have been a pretty horrible people to start with. Our major vice of old, as of today, is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labor and the good nature of the rest of the world.
But, despite our faults, we would never have done so much
damage to the world if it had not been for our genius for evil leadership. Granted our parasitism. But Parasitism is a virtue as well as an evil. Certain germ-parasites are essential to the steady flow of blood through the arteries
of an organic body. Certain social parasites, by the same dispensation, are important to the functioning of the blood of the body politic. The shame of Israel comes not of our being the bankers and the old clothes-men of the world. It comes,
rather, of the stupendous hypocrisy and cruelty imposed on us by our fatal leadership, and by us on the rest of the world.
The whole career of Jewry divides itself for me into three
distinctive and significant parts. The first was the period of the patriarchs when the Jews were numerically so inferior to the nations about them that they practically never went out to war against them, but depended, for looting them,
on the success of such little games as palming off wives as sisters and buying birthrights. The second period was the long national rest in Goshen, and the subsequent flight from Egypt, during which the Jews discovered, to their own amazement, that they had grown into a population of more than two million people. They were now so superior
numerically to the little tribes and kingdoms of Arabia, who stood in the way of their march on Canaan, that it was
practically no effort to slaughter them. And so they did. This second period lasted about two centuries, to the anguish of a bleeding peninsula. The inevitable followed, and that brings us into the third major division of Jewish history.
The wrath of the larger nations to the north and the west of Judea was aroused against the usurpers. One by one they swooped down on the Jews. The tide of conquest turned; it was now the Jews who were slaughtered and taken
into captivity almost at will. At one time nearly three quarters of the whole Jewish nation was seized and carried into a captivity from which it was never returned. It took a little time for this “stiff-necked people,” as the prophets called them, to realize that once more it was they who were numerically inferior to their enemies. The realization sank in slowly but
surely. Wisdom pointed out a reversal of national policy. The time when they could destroy their neighbor-nations by violence being definitely at an end, did they give up the national ghost? Ah, no.
For the first of all Jewish creeds is that Jews must live. It does not matter how, by what, or to what end? Jews must live. And so a return was made to the ancient policy of conquest by the more peaceful and delicate methods of cheating, lying and pimping.
Maybe you believe this poison, but sane human beings do not. ARE YOU THE SELF-HATING JEW in the story Larry? Sure sounds like it. You are a waste of oxygen. Enjoy your miserable little life, but consider yourself ignored. You are no longer providing any semblance of entertainment value.
“DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?
send us your name and address
and we’ll keep you informed
Dead Heads
PO Box 1065, San Rafael, California 94901.”
YO WOLFF, THE HASH HAS ROTTED YOUR OLD BRAIN.
THE “HOLY BABYLONIAN JEWISH TALMUD”
The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection
of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism.
Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):
“My son, be more careful in the observance of the words
of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).”
Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in “Judaism on Trial,” quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:
“Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to
understand passages in the Bible … God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own … anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture.”
The Talmud (and not the Scriptures) is the legal/canonical
text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.
Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a
day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1 Yebamoth 60b,
Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of
pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2 Yebamoth 60b
Has Rabbi ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.
THE PHARISEES ENDORSED CHILD SEX
The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than
now.” 3
In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a
Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:
“How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion
of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4
1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex
with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
OUT OF BABYLON
It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.
As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s
religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.
But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD,
mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to
revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.
SEX WITH A “MINOR” PERMITTED
What exactly did these sages say?
The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy
of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)
One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,
“All agree that the (sexual) connection of a boy aged
nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” Sanhedrin 69b 5
Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t
“throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6
“…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a
sexual act.” 7
The Talmud also says,
“A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his
deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).”8
Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to
marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
SEX AT THREE YEARS OLD & ONE DAY
In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a
little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday.
She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.
R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin 55b)
A girl who is three years of age and one day may be
betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(. Yebamoth 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in
marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is
under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says)
surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)
[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] .
. . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)
The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an
underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a
nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw
guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9
But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell
us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
NO RIGHTS FOR CHILD VICTIMS
The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by
molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must
protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” 10
The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to
forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,
“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl
it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” Kethuboth 11b.
In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and
female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on
proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the
child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.
PEDOPHILIA WIDESPREAD
Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism.
This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:
There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live
with a priest.
The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus
upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and
one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12
These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex.
Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries
off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns
a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:
“… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls
who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
A FASCINATION WITH SEX
Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent
preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.
The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis
most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.
Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape
advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation.
THE OEDIPUS COMPLEX INVENTED BY SIGMUND FREUD
Freud originally discovered, in the treatments partially
conducted under hypnosis, that all his Jewish patients, both male and female, had been abused children and recounted their histories in the language of symptoms. After reporting his discovery in Jewish psychiatric circles, he found
himself completely shunned because none of his fellow Jewish psychiatrists was prepared to share the findings with him. Freud could not bear the isolation for long. A few months later, in 1897, he described his patients’ reports on sexual abuse as sheer fantasies attributable to their instinctual wishes.
Freud’s father was a pedophile! In a letter to his friend
Wilhelm Fliess, he wrote:
“Unfortunately, my own father was one of these perverts
and is responsible for the hysteria of my brother (all of whose symptoms are identifications) and those of several younger sisters. The frequency of this circumstance often makes me wonder.”
Fliess’s son, Robert Fliess exposed his own father as being
another pedophile who had sexually abused him when he was a child.
Michelle Faul from the A.P. got the story in where those poor men were assaulted and victimized. I heard that on my way home listening to NPR and reflected on how fast the gay-bashing story spread around the world and I compared that to never a never a word from Michelle Faul about the murderous Boko Haram and how they hunt Chrisians down
using verses in the Qur’an. For years these Muslims have been terrorizing the Christian
population. Thousands and been systematically hunted down in their sleep and
while they worship and brutally slaughted. What courage is needed to be a
Christian in northern Nigeria!
Just wait Raymond, Don’t be surprised if Nossiter blames the Nigerian Christians for killing Gays and claims they were inspired by the Bible. One has to wonder how much these so-called journalists are being paid under the table to constantly lie about Islam to the American people.
The facts and figures about the relentless persecution and murder of literally millions of Christians in every Muslim majority nation is readily available to every single American journalist. There are dozens of reliable sources that have been providing honest information about the cleansing of Christians from every Islamic nation.
MEMRI translates every available news source in the Middle East from Arabic, Farsi, Urdu-Pashtu and Dari into English, French, Polish, Japanese, and Hebrew. There are dozens of Church organizations, global security groups, think tanks and sources like Raymond Ibrahim who issue regular reports on the suffering of Christians living under the yoke of Islam.
Only a liar, someone who is bought and paid for or an immoral vermin with an Islmaist agenda would hide the truth and write the sort of disgusting, deceitful propaganda that can be found in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS DELIBERATELY COVERING UP THE WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF CHRISTIANS IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD AND EVERY REPORTER WHO DOES SO HAS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS.
https://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/
It’s hard to feel bad for the christains when they pull shit like this