Sosialister over hele verden: Reis dere, stå opp og pris Mamdani, den nye ordføreren i NEW York City, den fremste ikke-islamske hovedstaden i verden. Til nå. For nå skal ting begynne å skje, for alvor.
Godt gjort sosialister! Hallo, Bernie? Goodbye?
Mamdani vil arbeide for mer «affordability». Det vil også myndighetene i Teheran, som nå opplever millioner av protestanter i gatene der. Make a big apple more affordable? Mamdani vil ikke ha et New York som er blitt en «playingground for the rich». Han vil ha mer «affordable housing», umiddelbart, (se under).
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/05/islam-drammen-og-sverige-og-det.html
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/12/frykter-du-deportasjon-av-muslimer-i.html
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/04/hellestveit-kierulf-ytringfriheten-og.html
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/05/vager-vi-lenger-snakke-sant-til-makta.html
Hvem kommer til å bli muslim? – test deg selv:
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/04/personlighetstest-kommer-du-noen-gang.html
Lawrence Fox continued: “Today there are over 3,000 mosques in England. There are over 130 sharia courts. There are more than 50 Sharia Councils. 78 percent of Muslim women do not work, receive state support + free accommodation. 63 percent of Muslims do not work, receive state support + free housing. State-supported Muslim families with an average of 6 to 8 children receive free accommodation. Now every school in the UK is required to teach lessons about Islam. Has anyone ever been given an opportunity to vote for this?”
Og så blir spørsmålet: Hvem vil kunne motstå eller begrense islam – karismatikerne?
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/02/vil-hanvolds-karisma-makte-stanse-eller.html
‘We are first and foremost impatient’: 93 mayors in Norway pressure government to take in more Muslim migrants
Ordførere i England, symptom eller årsak?
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/06/vil-pride-klare-splitte-eller-moderere.html
Pluss mer:
The local authorities with a Muslim population greater than 10 percent as of 2021 were:
- London Borough of Tower Hamlets 39.9% 123,912
- Blackburn with Darwen 35.0% 54,146
- London Borough of Newham 34.8% 122,146
- Luton 32.9% 74,191
- London Borough of Redbridge 31.3% 97,068
- City of Bradford 30.5% 166,846
- Birmingham 29.9% 341,811
- Slough 29.4% 46,661
- Pendle 26.0% 24,900
- Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 24.4% 59,031
- Leicester 23.5% 86,443
- London Borough of Waltham Forest 21.6% 60,157
- London Borough of Brent 21.4% 72,574
- City of Westminster 20.0% 40,873
- London Borough of Ealing 18.8% 68,907
- London Borough of Enfield 18.6% 61,477
- Kirklees 18.5% 80,046
- London Borough of Camden 16.1% 33,830
- High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 (2010)
- London Borough of Hackney 13.3% 34,578
- London Borough of Haringey 12.6% 33,295
- Nottingham 12.2% 39,540
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_England
For for sosialister flest eksisterer ikke gud, eller for dem er det samme – dvs likegyldig - om ordføreren (mayor) sverger seg inn med «Gud» eller med Allah, med hånden på Koranen, ikke Konstitusjonen (?), for sosialister er alt som gjelder, det er å skape et nytt samfunn, helt uavhengig av USA’s Konstitusjon og gud, eller Allah.
Og de tror at Mamdani går «helt inn» for dette (kanskje fordi de ser at han ikke har mulighet for noe annet og bare håper og håper så inderlig at de tar det som en selvfølge, nettopp det amarkanske systemet (med sitt kristne verdisyn og verdigrunnlag) vil forhindre at Mamdani kan fremme »egentlig» islam, - akkurat som her i landet, hvor sosialistene lever rosenrødt, helt uten torner). Never promised you a rose-garden? Make a big apple more affordable?
Så nå kan muslimer over hele verden juble, sammen med sosialistene, som bl a ble henrettet av Khomeini, og rope: Nå kan vi også gjøre det her, hos oss? Ned med imamene? La oss få en konstitusjon som primært bygger på den amerikanske konstitusjonen!
Mon tro Momdani vil tenke likt? Vil ikke islams påtrykk også påtrykke ham, inne i USA?
Momdani selv, som er muslim, kan kanskje innbille seg at han er en slag amerikansk Muhammed bin Salman som forbød moralpolitiet i Saudi å «forfølge» borgere på gatene, dvs folk som f eks brøt «»moralkodexen for påkledning og diverse ikke uviktige likestillingsting (hijab/niqab/burka) osv), ifølge Sharia (som i praksis er islam).
Moralpolitiet innvendte mot Salman: - Ja, men det står jo i «Bokji»!
-Jeg vet det, svarte Salman, (som selv har studert Sharia og visstnok har en tittel for en lærd innen islam), - men det er jeg som er konge, (idet han peker på at det står noen annet som kans tolkes annerledes her og der, i selveste «Bokji»). Dette kom frem i en dokumentar om Salman på DW i går, - noe de fleste som har fulgt med, har visst i lengre tid, men, men … ).
Men slik vil det ikke bli i New York, selv om mange ønsker det. Aller minst ønsker sosialister dette, men det moralpolitiet i Saudi har felles med sosialistene i New York med omland, er at de på sikt vil erstatte Konstitusjonen med sitt credo, som for sosialister selvfølgelig brygger og bygger på Marx: Ikke tolke, men forandre … og dermed kan krigen mot Vesten fortsette, inkludert borgerkrigen der, som kanskje allerede er på gang.
Transkript av talen, (se hvor søtt, så søtt, er det ikke Koranen han sverger på og legger sin hånd på?):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/05/zohran-mamdani-victory-speech-transcript
Og, skrevet dagen før innvielsen:
Generelt:
”Jeg lover troskap til De forente staters flagg, og til republikken den representerer, en nasjon under Gud, udelelig, med frihet og rettferdighet for alle.”
Eden ble først tatt i bruk i skolesammenheng i 1892. Staten aksepterte den offisielt i 1942. Men de to ordene ”under Gud” ble ikke tilføyet før i 1954. Den kalde krigen og frykten for den ateistiske kommunismen gjorde at Kongressen så et behov for vektlegging av Amerikas religiøse historie.
I Danmark må nye statsborgere love følgende: «Jeg lover
troskab og loyalitet overfor Danmark og det danske samfund og erklærer at ville
overholde dansk lovgivning og respektere grunnlæggende danske retsprincipper. »
I USA må nye statsborgere avgi et meget sterkt troskapsløfte til den
amerikanske konstitusjonen. lys av den amerikanske troskapseden framstår den
norske frivillige forsikringen som noe blodfattig.
-
Følgende skal være skrevet av Dr. Trifkovic, for mange år siden nå, - det har kanskje gyldighet fremdeles?
… The sacred law of Islam indicates that Islam is more than a "religion" in the Western sense of that term. That is, Islam certainly deals with ritual and worship and doctrine but also regulates the total behavior of the individual as (1) a member of a family, (2) a member of society, and (3) a citizen of a State. Where Islam dominates, it controls religion, culture, and politics! The idea of the "separation of Church and State" is totally incomprehensible to a pious Muslim. Islam is a total way of life; within Islam all institutions are "religious." The State itself is just another religious institution; its constitution and laws, of necessity, are assumed to be based upon the Shari'a (the religio-moral values of Islam). Shari'a includes all human action: public and private law, national and international law, details of religious ritual and ethics of social conduct. Every action (or inaction) falls under one of five categories of Shari'a: (1) What is commanded (by god); (2) What is recommended (by god); (3) What is legally indifferent (to god); (4) What is condemned or censured (by god); and (5) What is strongly and positively forbidden (by god). And this is all grounded in what the pious Muslim believes to be "immutable divine revelation."
It is the PIOUS and DEVOUT Muslim who is the enemy of both humans and God. It is ONLY when Islam becomes "active" (i.e., plays an active role in the life of the individual, and subsequently in all culture and politics) that the people who believe in "Satan's Disciple, Mohammed" become inhumane and purely Satanic in their behavior, culture, politics and thought. And, as Satan's "bible" informs his "faithful," a non-believer is NOT human -- so there is no penalty for murdering him.
Although Muslims claim their god to be loving, merciful, and just, he is more frequently revealed in their scriptures and traditions to be stern, demanding, retributive, vengeful and even arbitrary: "Those that disobey Allah and His Apostle shall abide forever in the fire of hell" (Sura 72). The faithful Muslim is further ordered by his god to actively fight all unbelievers: "And slay them wherever ye catch them" (2:191). Islam is not a religion of forgiveness and faith but one of good works and obedience. After several centuries of brutal military conquest, ruthless pillage, and enslavement of over two thirds of Christendom, Christians finally launched defensive measures now known as The Crusades against this uncivilized and barbarous glorification and manifestation of The Old Adam ruthlessly encouraged by this Satanic philosophy/religion known as Islam.
Islam is a purely Satanic philosophy attempting to deceive people into believing it is JUST another pious and peaceful "religion" -- it most certainly isn't! But most modern Western politicians have fully bought into (accepted) this false, dishonest propaganda.
A devout Muslim CANNOT be or become (i.e., honestly take the Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. Reputlic) an honest and moral U.S. citizen -- for the goal and objective of Islam (in ANY nation) is to DESTROY the non-Islamic government and way of life and replace it with the Satanic form of government commanded in their so-called "holy book" and exercised in the Early Middle Ages (and today in Muslim-controlled nations such as Saudi Arabia) which fully controls religion, culture, politics, and behavior.
“We must never forget . . . that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government — anywhere in the world – in order to replace it by an Islamic one,” the speaker concluded his remarks. The venue was a mosque, not in Rawalpindi or Jeddah but in San Francisco. When a recent American convert to Islam noted that if Muslims are obligated to overthrow the U.S. government then accepting Islam was tantamount to an act of political treason, the lecturer responded matter-of-factly, “Yes, that’s true.”
He was right both technically and substantively. A breach of allegiance to the United States by naturalized Muslims is not a rarity, it is an integral part of the Muslim-American experience. It is an inherent dilemma for many; it leads the serious and devout few to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem will be solved only if and when Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who actively supports or preaches jihad, inequality of “infidels,” the establishment of the Shari’a law, etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.
For a Muslim to declare in good faith "...that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. (In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.)", and especially that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of brazen apostasy par excellence, and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The Sharia, to a pious Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists with “the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will. In America that is not the case and its government is therefore illegitimate.
It is equally sacrilegious for a Muslim to swear to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That vow, if it means anything substantial, means that he would be prepared to shoot a fellow Muslim, or denounce him to the authorities, in defense of his adopted homeland. That this is not how many if not most naturalized Muslims see it is a matter of record.
So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath of American citizenship, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith and not only in order to get that coveted passport? A devout Muslim can do it only if in taking the oath he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of old-fashioned Jihad. Or else he may take it because he is not devout and may be confused -- in other words if he is not a very good Muslim at all; but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point in the future he or his American-born offspring will rediscover their roots. The consequences of such awakening for the rest of us are invariably perilous!
The American people and Federal government consequently need to address two key questions: (1) why should a Muslim want to become a citizen of a secular, pluralist, non-Muslim nation; and (2) why should that nation’s non-Muslim citizens want to have him accepted as one of them.
The answer is inseparable from the fact that a person’s Islamic faith and outlook are incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are implicit in the U.S. Oath of Citizenship, and absolutely essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr%C4%91a_Trifkovi%C4%87
Vil vi nå snarling, eller på litt lengre sikt, se et “failed” New York? A kind of rougue state? Svar: Sannsynligvis ikke. sosialister i alle land er villig til ofre mye for at så ikke kommer til å skje, ved å tvinge andre (også dem selv, faktisk) til å ofre stadig mer og mer for “den gode saken” de tror de kjemper for, men uten å prøve å forstå det vesentlige; sosialister elsker å flikke på symptomer, årsaker er for skremmende, må vite. Lenge leve dyds- og moralposører, snøfnugg, og servilt betinget emojosjonelt korrkete “, som vil reise seg på tilsneket (hypermagisk) vegne av de fattige i alle Verdens land”?
Joda, fordi muslimer nå en stund skal anses for å være objektiverte eller essensialiserte arbeidere (på “våre” premisser og på ordre fra vår “aktuelle” elite)?
Sosialister vil aldri se det som en direkte følge av deres snobbete ideer, at følgende har skjedd, i USA, og Mamdani vil nå ha satt i gang “more affordable housing” umiddelbart:
Failed U.S. housing projects, like Chicago's Cabrini-Green and St. Louis's Pruitt-Igoe, became symbols of urban blight due to poor design (especially high-rise towers), racial segregation, concentrated poverty, severe underfunding, and lack of maintenance, leading to crime and deteriorating conditions, with Pruitt-Igoe famously demolished in the 1970s and Cabrini-Green later redeveloped. While often blamed on residents or modernist ideals, many argue these projects were sabotaged by decades of disinvestment and policy choices that concentrated poverty and stripped resources, turning ambitious plans into lasting failures.
Key Examples of Failed Projects
- Pruitt-Igoe (St. Louis, MO): Opened in 1954, it was meant to be modern but quickly became crime-ridden and uninhabitable, with its televised demolition in 1972 symbolizing the failure of large-scale public housing.
- Cabrini-Green (Chicago, IL): Once a symbol of successful public housing, it became synonymous with poverty, gang violence, and neglect, with its transformation later becoming a key case study in urban renewal.
- Techwood Homes (Atlanta, GA): America's first public housing project, it demonstrated early racial segregation by evicting Black families to house white residents, setting a precedent for future racist policies, notes Governing.
Common Reasons for Failure
- Design Flaws: High-rise structures often concentrated social problems and lacked community spaces, overwhelming management.
- Racial Segregation: Early projects enforced racial divides, concentrating poverty in Black communities and isolating residents from jobs and opportunities, says Governing.
- Systemic Underfunding: Inadequate federal funding and reliance on low rental income meant repairs and maintenance couldn't keep pace with rising costs, leading to decay, notes US History Scene.
- Policy Shifts: Later federal funding cuts (like in the 1980s) and programs focused on demolition rather than investment further crippled projects, argue Vox and Homeward Bound Villages.
Kommentar fra nettet: The "Myth of Failure" Argument:
Many experts argue that public housing wasn't inherently a failure but was actively sabotaged by policy choices and disinvestment, creating conditions that made failure inevitable, say US History Scene and Vox. (søk google på: failed housing projects in the us)
Sosialister tror ikke på gud, fordi:
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/sosialister-flirter-optimistisk-med.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2011/06/vil-venstresiden-na-endelig-forsta-det.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-spe-islamofilt-fascistoide.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2025/04/kan-visse-sosialister-na-snart-bli-kalt.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/06/muslimer-er-mer-fornuftige-enn-kristne.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/06/sosialister-elsker-allah-fordi.html
-
Se denne: https://www.amazon.com/Burden-Bad-Ideas-Intellectuals-Misshape/dp/1566633966
The Burden of Bad Ideas: How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society Paperback – July 24, 2001, by Heather MacDonald (Author).
Kommentar: MacDanal kommer med en «drepende» analyse av grunnen til at visse delstater kunne kjøre seg så til de grader på rævva, at man knapt vil tror det, - men forsvare det, ja, det gjør både bevisste og helt ubevisste gladsosialister den dag i dag).
Omtale: Critics have attacked the foolishness of some of today's elite thought from many angles, but few have examined the real-world consequences of those ideas. In The Burden of Bad Ideas, Heather Mac Donald reports on their disastrous effects throughout our society. At a Brooklyn high school, students perfect their graffiti skills for academic credit. An Ivy League law professor urges blacks to steal from their employers. Washington bureaucrats regard theft by drug addicts as evidence of disability, thereby justifying benefits. Public health officials argue that racism and sexism cause women to get AIDS. America's premier monument to knowledge, the Smithsonian Institution, portrays science as white man's religion. Such absurdities, Ms. Mac Donald argues, grow out of a powerful set of ideas that have governed our public policy for decades, the product of university faculties and a professional elite who are convinced that America is a deeply unjust society. And while these beliefs have damaged the nation as a whole, she observes, they have hit the poor especially hard. Her reports trace the transformation of influential opinion-makers (such as the New York Times) and large philanthropic foundations from confident advocates of individual responsibility, opportunity, and learning into apologists for the welfare state. In a series of closely reported stories from the streets of New York to the seats of intellectual power, The Burden of Bad Ideas reveals an upside-down world and how it got that way.
Og ta denne: Intellectual Morons av Daniel J. Flynn.
The Death of the grown-up av Diana West.
The Criminalization of Chrtianity av Janet L. Folger.
The Tyrranny of Cliches av Jona Goldberg.
