HILLARY CLINTON IS THE NEW MOHAMMED (abridged)

1_CLINTON-AKBAR_1

DISCLAIMER 1

What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2

I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

A “VIRTUOUS” MAN

A powerful man in his 50’s had a wet dream that involved a 6 year old girl. He knew the girl’s father and as appalling as it sounds, he convinced the father to allow him to marry the 6 year old girl. 3 years later, the man in his 50’s sexually molested the 9 year old girl with the intention of getting her pregnant. Despite all this, he faced zero consequences for his acts of pedophilia. Quite the opposite, that pedophile is actively revered and celebrated around the world.

Would you like to know his name? That pedophile’s name is the “prophet” Mohammed and the victim of his pedophilia was Aisha.

Allow me to clarify: the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a blatant pedophile who molested a girl by the name Aisha when she was only 6-9 years old.

How can a pedophile be revered instead of reviled? Simple, most Muslims refuse consider Mohammed accountable for his criminal acts because they believe Mohammed did so many good things for the Islamic world that molesting Aisha at 9 years of age, “simply should not” count.

In plain English a pedo like Mohammed gets a pass because he was “too virtuous”.

But wait, it gets worse, once you start talking to Muslims in civilized, non controversial ways (disclaimer: you manipulate them into trusting you) you then preface your upcoming question with a direct criticism of the crimes depicted in the bible (of course that they love agreeing with you when you harshly criticize the bible, as a result they often assume you are on their side) then, when their guard is down, you very smoothly ask them something along these lines:

“OK, you clearly know much more about Islam than me, please tell me the truth of what happened between Muhammad and Aisha because plenty of people like to hate on Islam and claim Mohammed had sex with her when she was only 6 or 9, is that really true?”

Usually 3 things will happen:
1) They avoid the question
2) They try to change Aisha’s age to 12
3) They say Mohammed cannot be questioned. End of the story.

Point 3 is especially interesting, because if you are skilled enough, you feign innocence then bring up the verses where Aisha’s age is clearly stated when she was molested by Mohamed  immediately after you bring up the fact that Mohammed himself decrees that having sex with girls who have not yet menstruated is “acceptable” (Qur’an 65:4) .

Then you state that pedophilia is a horrible crime and should be punished, then they are forced to agree with you but then…they go back to giving Mohammed a pass.

Why? Because he was ” too virtuous”.

See where this is going?

It does not matter how much evidence you bring up, most Muslims cannot be persuaded about Mohammed being a pedophile. They may agree with you that modern pedophiles must be punished but their pedo-Prophet Mohammed? He gets a pass.

You could spend hours speaking in the most tactful of terms and show them the best of evidence but they inescapably go into FULL UNPERSUADABLE mode after going through the “triple R” stages which go like this:

  1. Refuse the validity of evidence of their chosen leader’s crimes
  2. Refuse to assign any accountability to their chosen leader
  3. Refuse to be persuaded

As a result of adopting the triple R , Muslims usually go into full UNPERSUADABLE MODE.

2_CLINTON-AKBAR_

See, the inconvenient truth is that for “unpersuadables” what counts is belief not reason. They have already made up their mind and they may entertain perfunctory discussion with you for ornamental reasons. They just pretend to think to avoid looking entirely dumb in conversations. Make no mistake some are very dumb but some even hold Phd’s and doctorates.

In the case of the ones with higher education, it is just fascinating to notice how, deep down, they are aware their belief makes no sense yet they just consistently decide not touch that dark object of faith in their otherwise bright minds. Theirs is an act of willful, selective ignorance.

It is a fascinating contradiction because many of them have higher than average IQ’s but choose to be selectively dumb when it comes to their faith. Thus they willfully choose to make their  intellect ornamental. Theirs is a matter of faith not reason and evidence.

Many of these examples of otherwise (almost mentally sane) people who actively choose to refuse all evidence and become unpersuadable are depicted in Will Storr’s Book “The unpersuadables: Adventures with the enemies of science”

7_CLINTON-AKBAR_

 

One needs to be careful when dealing with unpersuadable Muslims who went through the triple R stages. See, after prodding them with questions they get secretly angry and as a result they usually go into full DARVO against you (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) or in plain English they will spin anything you say as “discrimination” or “Islamophobia”
4_CLINTON-AKBAR

A “VIRTUOUS” WOMAN

 

Religions like Islam are not alone in their unpersuadable behavior, quite the opposite, those who closely resemble Islam are feminists themselves. It only suffices to swap Mohammed’s pedophilia with Hillary’s private server scandal then you get comparable (if not equal) levels of unpersuadable behavior.

Just for the sake of argument let’s do some brief word swapping:

A powerful woman in her 60’s had a wet dream that involved being above the law and deleting confidential and classified emails at will by illegally using her own email server, she knew the right IT experts and as appalling as it sounds, convinced one to install the little server in her basement.

A few years later, the woman in her 60’s had illegally deleted over 32K private emails and nearly 2.1K Classified State Department emails all with the intention of being above the law but faced zero consequences for her acts of corruption.

Despite all this, she faced zero consequences for her acts of corruption. Quite the opposite, that corrupt feminist is actively revered and celebrated around the world.

Would you like to know her name? That woman’s name is the “Democratic US President Candidate” Hillary Clinton.

But wait, it gets worse, once you start talking to Democrats in civilized, non controversial ways (disclaimer: you manipulate them into trusting you) you then preface your upcoming question with a criticism of the flaws & crimes on the Republican side (of course they love to agree with you when you harshly criticize the other side, after this they assume you are on their side) then you very smoothly ask them something along these lines:

“OK you clearly know much more about the democratic party than me, please tell me the truth of what happened between Hillary Clinton and the email server because plenty of people like to hate on feminist democrats and claim Hillary illegally deleted over 32K private emails and nearly 2.1K Classified State Department emails, is that really true?”

Usually 3 things will happen:
1) They avoid the question
2) They try to change the server’s location.
3) They say Hillary cannot be questioned. End of the story.

Point 3 is especially interesting, because if you are skilled enough, you feign innocence then bring up the laws on federal government record keeping where it is clearly illegal to delete classified emails without authorization and how the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns about Hillary Clinton’s violations of those federal laws. Then you state that corruption is a crime and should be punished, then they agree with you but then…they go back to giving Hillary a pass. Why? Because she is “too talented”.

See where this is going?

It does not matter how much evidence you bring up, most democrats cannot be persuaded about Hillary Clinton being a corrupt politician.
They may agree with you that corrupt politicians must be punished but their crooked-Feminist Hillary? She gets a pass.

You could spend hours speaking in the most tactful of terms and the best of evidence but they will inescapably go into FULL UNPERSUADABLE MODE  after going through the “triple R” stages which go like this:
Refuse the validity of evidence of their chosen leader’s crimes
Refuse to assign any accountability to their chosen leader
Refuse to be persuaded

As a result of adopting the triple R , democrats usually stay into full UNPERSUADABLE MODE.

 

 

3_CLINTON-AKBAR_

It is impressive how fervent both Muslims and Democrats get when you openly criticize their respective chosen leader, they just cover their ears and no evidence will suffice. That is when you realize you are not dealing with rational adults.

First they expect you to agree with them or else they label you as “hateful” because disagreeing means you either are an “Islamophobe” or just a “misogynist”. But what truly is fascinating is how both Muslims and Democrats DARVO you like clockwork.

Why do these fervent democrats mimic their radical Muslim counterparts?

Do they even realize how religious it is to demand lack for accountability for Hillary?

To the democrats, the email scandal or the Benghazi attack controversy or any amount of evidence against Hillary Clinton is refused and falsely labelled as “blasphemous-misogyny”

All of the above regarding Islam and the Democratic party boils down to the following two parallels between Muslims and democrats:

*Regardless of evidence, if you accuse Mohammed of pedophiia you are DARVO’ed and they accuse you of blasphemy/islamophobia.

*Regardless of evidence, if you accuse Hillary of any crime you are DARVO’ed and they accuse you of hate/misogyny.

When your chosen leader cannot be held accountable for his or her flaws you have a perfect dictatorship with DARVO as a side dish.

4_CLINTON-AKBAR

Thank you for reading


 

*PS:

SOME OF YOU MAY COMPLAIN COMPARING HILLARY CLINTON TO A PEDOPHILE IS “OFFENSIVE” BUT WHAT IS BEING COMPARED HERE IS HER UNPERSUADABLE FOLLOWERS REFUSE ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST HER JUST THE WAY ISLAMIC UNPERSUADABLES DO WITH EVIDENCE AGAINST MOHAMMED.

IN ANY GIVEN CASE, REST ASSURED THAT I DO NOT GIVE ANY PARTICULAR FUCK IF YOU GOT OFFENDED.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: