Suggestions and Takeaways: Part 1
Suggestions and Takeaways: Part 1
A look at major nations perceived as resistant to globalist institutions
Continued from Deeper Societal Trends Predating the Central Banks: Part 2…
Before offering suggestions deriving from the information contained in this essay, this part first looks at commonly perceived competitors to our financial elites including Sunni and Shiite Islam, Poland, Russia and China, concluding that they are all as controlled as the West.
A PROBLEM CAN ONLY BE SOLVED TO THE EXTENT IT IS ADDRESSED
A problem can only be addressed to the extent it is known, identified and planned for. As Chesterton said, “You'll never find the solution if you don't see the problem.” A dying patient who has cancer and, as a result of that cancer, has multiple other issues affecting his health, can see improved health by addressing the symptoms of those issues by taking various drugs, but unless the cancer itself is directly eradicated the patient will still be dying even if it’s slowed down by the other treatments.
It is much the same way in politics and ideology. Let’s consider examples of a person or group who mis-diagnosed problem and what happened thereafter:
Trump was elected on a reformist platform; his supporters elected him to reform the excesses of society and bring it back to how it was a couple of decades ago. His hero was Reagan and he tried to style himself that way, even copying his “Make America Great Again” slogan:
The institutions he trusted were the institutions his boomer generation trusted. He read the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post and did everything he could to ingratiate himself to these people. Trump was small-minded with the heart and soul of a merchant, not a warrior, and simply wanted a reversion back to the “good times” of a prior generation. His historical knowledge was absent and he stumbled from one crisis to the next with no vision. Unable to see clearly the forces he was up against - an entrenched civil service close to impossible to fire, a leadership of racial bolshevik partisans working to undermine the core fabric of society, Rothschild-owned central banks immune to “public pressure” with their own longterm plans, and the equality cult of supercharged crypto-Christianity - he was always destined to lose.
The 1/6 protesters were the same way. These people believed that America has a system of representative government and that they needed to show up and make their voice heard, to have their protest be seen in large numbers so the country could understand that the election was stolen. They were trying to solve a problem by “bringing the country back” to where it was a couple of decades ago. By having such a fundamentally incorrect understanding of who runs America, how politics is “kayfabe” and power is centralized in a hidden, malevolent oligarchy that owns the media, utilizing D.C. institutions to frame people and events with embedded agents (they did this at Charlottesville too), they would have been well advised to stay away from such an event.
Unarmed, peaceful, well-meaning protesters who had no idea about the malevolence they were up against. Consider the example of Francisco Franco in Spain. His vision for society was to keep it monarchical with traditional values and Christianity as its core. In essence he wanted to keep society at an early 20th century level, static and frozen in time. And he was able to keep it this way, with a sclerotic, atrophied ruling class for the time he was alive. The moment he died though, the youth, who were already heavily indoctrinated into globalism by liberal university professors, pushed Spain to join globohomo and overthrow all of their traditions, which happened immediately. By having such a limited vision Spain under Franco was always destined to lose.
Franco died in 1975; the elections of 1977 led to the liberalization of Spain and the immediate ruination of Franco’s legacy. Eventually Franco’s grave was exhumated and his remains moved to a common grave, forbidden from being draped in the Spanish flag.
There are an unlimited number of examples of those whose incorrect diagnosis of a problem rendered their efforts ineffective from the very start.
The European blogger Kynosarges makes a similar argument, castigating the short-sightedness of right wing populism, which he believes has six major deficiencies:
Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…
Because of these six issues, according to Kynosarges,
[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.
The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….
Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity.
Therefore, the solution to this supercharged equality cult can only be solved, to the extent it is possible, by addressing the heart of the matter and causing at least a partial transvaluation of priestly values back into warrior values which value strength, immediacy, and hierarchy; perhaps an equilibrium between priest/warrior values may be reached through something like a reinvigorated hierarchical Catholicism, or something new, either secular or religious. The difficulty of addressing this core issue while relying on mostly allies with internalized lopsided priestly values (because the number of individuals who have transvalued the extreme hyper-focus on equality is very, very low) makes such a scenario difficult to imagine at this time. It is up to the Fates how and if this is even possible at this late hour.
A REVIEW OF MAJOR NATIONS SEEN AS RESISTANT TO GLOBOHOMO
Before offering some suggestions and conclusions in Part 2, let’s look at the state of major nations which are publicly perceived as containing some degree of resistance to the established order - Iran, Sunni Islam countries, China, Russia, Poland and a brief look at Mormonism too. Are any or all of these ideologically resistant to globohomo? Do they possess a “dynamic counter-ideal” and if so are they “equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West”, or perhaps they may “become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers”? To what extent are they controlled, directly or indirectly, by globalist institutions?
SUNNI ISLAM
It was a question for years whether true believers of Islam (which itself has a questionable history1) would submit to globohomo, but if this data is correct (and it may not be, given the source is a compilation of establishment outlets) the trends indicate the Sunni Middle East is undergoing rapid secularization:
Between 2012 and 2019 North Africa Muslim countries significantly liberalized, and it looks like these trends are continuing. Even Saudi Arabia is liberalizing, allowing women to drive starting in 2018. Other mainstream outlets have run with commentary on the same trends including the NYT and BBC. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Israel has become much more public, and both the Saudi Central bank and the Central Bank of UAE are moving forward with globalist, anti-freedom CBDC projects. Saudi’s artificial The Line project in Neom will give their leaders a much greater degree of control of its citizens in line with World Economic Forum “15 minute city” goals. Saudi’s efforts at de-dollarization along with the BRIC nations are likely in-line with overarching globohomo goals.
On the other hand, over 80% of people polled in the Middle East rejected homosexuality as “morally unacceptable”, showing that cultural and moral resistance is greater than elsewhere. Either way, it will be interesting to see the impact of Islam's increasing control as it demographically swamps Europe in the upcoming decades, as history consistently shows that it will seek to attain dominance.
SHIITE IRAN
Before 9/11 there were allegedly seven countries without Rothschild owned central banks: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003 Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war after Gaddafi’s head banker Farhat Omar Bengdara proved to be a pro-globohomo mole.
The two countries possibly remaining, Iran and North Korea, are regularly subject to extreme warmongering propaganda by the west, and this could explain why. It is also ironic because the western establishment overthrew the Shah of Iran because of his criticism of Jews; some like author Guido Giacomo Preparata believes Iran has always been controlled, where the Western intelligence services handed Iran to Khomeini (1979) who was living in Britain before the handover, much as the British handed Russia to the Bolsheviks (and Lenin was also living in the West beforehand).
With that said Iran is arguably cut off from the western financial system, suffering difficult sanctions, and they are vehement against the “Great Satan” (America) and the “Little Satan” (Israel). Iran lives under Sharia law, homosexuals and transgenders have no place in society, and they place a strong emphasis on the family unit. Ayatollah Khamenei tweeted in 2020:
“Women’s nudity and exploitation for men’s pleasure led to the destruction of families & the weakening of the foundation of the family in the West. When the family is weakened and destroyed in a society, corruption becomes institutionalized in that society. #FamilyDay. In Western culture, a woman must expose herself to men in order to be a source of pleasure for them! Is there a graver form of oppression?! They call this ‘freedom,’ and the opposite they call ‘captivity’! While on the contrary, women’s modest dress brings them respect. The West cunningly evades discussing the issue of the family. They bring up the issue of women in every discussion but don’t discuss the family. This is because the West’s weak point & record of failures are in the sphere of the family. #FamilyDay”.
Iran is not totally immune to the issues that weaken a country against globalization, though. Sharia law prohibits the charging of interest for loans but unfortunately Sharia compliant banking utilizes interest-based lending in all but name.
The major cities in Iran have dramatically secularized and liberalized: much of the 2009 pro-American protests against the Mullahs arose in its capital Tehran. Iran is also pursuing CBDCs which will be used to dramatically curtail individual freedom and expand the power of the state and they went along with the false COVID narrative, so even there it is unclear how truly independent they really are.
On a side note, Tehran has a dramatic sub-replacement birthrate despite being in a supposed ultra-religious country, while the rest of Iran has a birthrate of only 2.103 and declining. This is reflective of a rural vs city divide for political beliefs throughout the world: cities worldwide are much more liberal than rural areas and rural areas have much higher fertility than urban areas, due in part to the increased religiousness and lower cost of living of living in the countryside. Urban areas are also known as “IQ shredders”, where the country’s smartest (on paper) people go and compete and, due to the much higher cost of living, have sub-replacement fertility.2 In other words, the smartest (on paper) people in a country are continuously outbred by generally less intelligent (on paper) people living in rural areas. So it seems the urban vs. city divide is a powerful one even in a religious country.
WHAT ABOUT MORMONS IN UTAH AND CONSERVATIVE COUNTRIES LIKE POLAND AND RUSSIA?
The degree of support for gay marriage is a decent indicator of the extent a country is willing to resist globohomo. Judging by the below chart, Mormons in Utah and so-called conservative countries like Poland are only time-delayed from the degeneracy and societal breakdown experienced elsewhere; these areas will sooner or later have the same results as the rest of the world.
Utah is so skin-suited that 2012 Republican presidential candidate and Mormon Utah Senator Mitt Romney voted in favor of nationally legalizing gay marriage in 2022, even though Mormons had led the drive against it in California in 2008, only 14 years prior.
Russia, except for gay marriage, is already considerably more liberal than Poland in many ways. Per Anatoly Karlin, “Russians are much less religious, at least in terms of active practice, and the [Russian Orthodox Church] is less influential than the Catholic Church. Abortion is legal, while it is not in Poland – and the conservatives there now want to make these restrictions all the more total by even banning “eugenic” abortion.” Russia has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, higher than the United States. Russians also have much less inclination to live in a homogenous society. Just like the rest of the west, Russia is likely controlled by the world central bank owners: it has a Rothschild owned central bank (which, per Russian blogger Stanley Sheppard, is used to keep Russia deliberately impoverished3), Putin was a World Economic forum young leader, he initially rose to power as a corrupt security apparatchik firmly under the thumb of the west, he fires critics of Chabad and helps finance the west’s war to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and Russia has been gung-ho about the COVID narrative, COVID vaccine passports and upcoming CBDCs.4
On the other hand, Russia was reportedly suspended from the Bank for International Settlements in 2022, it has a very low debt to GDP ratio (11.9%, compared to 113.8% in the United States), and Russia remains somewhat resistant to social liberalism, but it’s ability to resist the onslaught of globohomo seems highly questionable.
For Poland, Russia, and Utah, then, these pseudo-right wing areas seem destined to lose and turn liberal over time. This is because they have no proactive ideal for which to inspire a population, as opposed to merely reacting powerlessly to a disappeared history that will never return. As Kynosarges stated above, these groups “have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas.”
WHAT ABOUT CHINA?
Currently China is either a peer or near-peer of the United States in terms of military and economic power. A look at China’s post-war history, combined with its pro-globohomo policies on a wide variety of issues (COVID vaccines, lockdowns, social credit systems, CBDCs) as well as continued American financial and military elite support casts a great deal of doubt as to China’s independence, even though the specific control mechanisms by the world central bank owners are obscured. Just a handful of examples of such support includes:
General Milley promising to tell China ahead of time if Trump would attack them.
Blackstone investing heavily in China.
US pension funds investing heavily in China.
The Rockefeller’s bankrolling Chinese based “nonprofits” with ties to the government.
Mitch McConnell’s wife abusing her office to help her family firm with China business and
Hunter Biden being paid millions by a Chinese state-linked energy firm for pay-for-play favors.
This corrupt behind the scenes relationship is two-sided: Senator Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy in her office for 20 years; Congressman Eric Swawell had an affair with a Chinese spy; the Chinese have bought up vast swaths of American and Canadian real estate, many Communist party members are employed by western companies and a large number of former Congressmen and Senators regularly lobby (e.g. “bribe”) on China’s behalf, are also just a handful of recent examples.
Could it be this is just part of “global integration” and they’re just using each other, without China being subject to actual globohomo control? That’s what many Chinese analysts argue, and pro-Chinese bloggers such as Spandrell believe Xi has “purged” many globalist elements there over the last decade. A look at the history of U.S. and communist China relations, however, provides substantial support that this view is false and that the Rothschilds control China, although the specific control mechanisms are hidden. Let’s briefly delve into an account of this…
A brief history of modern U.S./China relations
In 1949 the communists took over China with the help of deliberate Washington meddling. Chiang Kai-shek, a faithful nationalist ally of the U.S., was trying to establish a constitutional republic, but General Marshall, acting on President Truman’s instructions, demanded that Chiang accept the communists into his government or forfeit U.S. support. Marshall also negotiated truces that saved the communists from imminent defeat and which they exploited to regroup and seize more territory. Finally, he slammed a weapons embargo on the nationalist government, just as the communists had been urging him to do. Marshall returned home and was appointed Secretary of State. Thanks to the U.S. embargo, the nationalists ran out of ammunition. Congress voted to send $125 million in military aid to Chiang, but Truman held up implementation until China collapsed.5 On January 25, 1949, John F. Kennedy declared before the House of Representatives: "Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government." He reaffirmed this in a speech five days later, concluding: "This is the tragic story of China, whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away."6
Our China policy then worked toward rapprochement with the communists as swiftly as the American people could be persuaded to allow it. Every President since FDR has had a part in this continuum:
Roosevelt ceded Manchurian ports to Stalin during World War II and agreed to equip the Soviets' expedition into China, where they armed Mao Tse-tung's revolutionaries.
Truman through his proxy, George Marshall, permitted the fall of China by truce negotiations, a weapons embargo against the nationalists, and the obstruction of congressionally mandated military aid.
Eisenhower forced Taiwan to relinquish the Tachen Islands to Peking and interceded to prevent Chiang Kai-shek from invading the mainland in 1955.
Kennedy also prevented Chiang from invading the mainland in 1962 when it was in turmoil and ripe for overthrow.
Johnson terminated economic aid to Taiwan.
Nixon visited China, breaking the ice with the communists. That same year, despite the atrocities committed by the CCP, the Rockefeller's had this to say: “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
Ford presided over the withdrawal of most of the U.S. troops from Taiwan, and visited the mainland.
Carter broke relations with Taiwan, recognized Peking.
Reagan proliferated trade with Red China and promised reduced arms sales to Taiwan.7
Step by step, our China policy followed an essentially unwavering course regardless of which party occupied the White House. This history has a pattern, and as Thomas Jefferson once said: “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”8
China was then “allowed” to join the World Trade Organization in 2001. An analysis by the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, a labor-oriented think tank, estimated in January 2020 that the U.S. trade deficit with China resulted in the loss of 3.7 million jobs from 2001-2018, greatly furthering the de-industralization of America:
American consumers profited from cheaper, poorly made goods, but the damage to society far outweighed the benefits. And it was intentional: “The major problem was not that China joined the WTO, but that the U.S. failed to enforce China’s commitments even though in China’s WTO accession agreement we included extremely strict and unique enforcement provisions against China,” said Barshefsky. Despite the relative ease with which affected companies could file for safeguard measures, only three such applications were filed during the Bush administration and the president denied all three of them “on some misplaced geopolitical calculation,” Barshefsky said. The sole import safeguard imposed against Chinese imports before the mechanism expired in 2013 was the Obama administration’s 2009 imposition of duties on Chinese tire imports linked to the loss of 5,000 U.S. jobs.
Today companies like Ford, FedEx, Tesla, and Honeywell, as well as Qualcomm and other semiconductor manufacturers that fought to continue selling chips to Huawei, all exist with one leg in America and the other leg planted firmly in America’s chief geopolitical rival. To protect both halves of their business, they soft-sell the issue by calling China a competitor in order to obscure their role in boosting a dangerous rival. Nearly every major American industry has a stake in China. From Wall Street — Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — to hospitality. A Marriott Hotel employee was fired when Chinese officials objected to his liking a tweet about Tibet. They all learned to play by CCP rules, including forced technology transfers. “It’s so pervasive, it’s better to ask who’s not tied into China,” says former Trump administration official Gen. (Ret.) Robert Spalding. Bill Gates sees China’s ascension as a “huge win for the world” - why would he say this unless he and the other elites in his class were personally benefitting from it? [Although, to be fair, George Soros seems like he may be cut out personally and is upset about it. Mark Zuckerberg, in an attempt of shocking cravenness to buy political influence, tried to get President Xi to name his child, which he declined.]
Detailed anecdotes of the preferment well-connected westerners receive attending university in China in the present day also demonstrate the heavy influence of the west on their educational system; see here.
With the Chinese elites likely controlled by globalist puppetmasters, one can only assume that if there is ever a military conflict between China and America the purpose of it would be to further the overarching Great Reset goals as well as to drive up central bank debt to unimaginable levels. Therefore the war would likely be as fake (in terms of the central bank owners controlling both sides) and as preplanned as the current Ukraine war.9
***
Part 2 of “Suggestions and Takeaways” will offer some conclusions and takeaways from this essay.
There is almost no contemporary historical evidence about the life of Mohammad, with no mention of him at all in historical texts until 70 years after his death.
One can even see this trend developing in Taliban controlled Kabul.
Per Stanley Sheppard: “Exactly the right definition…"Washington consensus". The term was coined not that long ago, back in 1989, and essentially means how finances of the third world countries should be managed. Initially it applied to South America, but as Soviet Union was dissolved, Russia was given the status like that of Brasil or Argentina. The consensus consists of the three core principles - manage population using Darwinian principles, tightly control money supply primarily by the means of high interest rates, do everything possible to prevent internal investments in the manufacturing sector or anything else working to develop own economy and to create a favorable internal investment climate. The extent to which this consensus is applied to countries varies - Russia gets one of the harshest treatments. Now the bigger question is, how and why Russian fiscal authorities during the all out proxy war are still compliant with imposed rules? This drives many people to conclusion that perhaps this is not a real war between Russia and the West, but a make believe conflict at the expense of Ukraine designed to achieve totally different goals vs. those pronounced by Putin last February.” His Substack is available here.
Perloff, 88.
Ibid, 207-208.
Ibid.
On a side note, at least some of the Chinese population are aware of the problem of white leftists. They even have a term for them: “baizuo”. According to wikipedia, “‘Baizuo’ is a popular political epithet commonly used on the Chinese internet. The literal translation is "white left" which refers to western white leftists. According to Chinese political scientist Chenchen Zhang, the word "Baizuo" refers to those who "only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT rights and the environment", but lack a concept of "real problems in the real world". It is also used to describe those "hypocritical humanitarians who advocate political correctness just to satisfy their own sense of moral superiority”. Some used this word to indicate those "ignorant and arrogant westerners" who "pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”. Hopefully these sentiments will continue to grow, but in the meantime, globohomo in China remains firmly in the driver’s seat.
That map is absolutely sublime! Right up my alley, considering my proclivity to compare both the USSR (unfavourably) and Juche Korea (rather favourably) to the religiosity of Wahhabi Islam. It has to be kept in mind that Tunisia is Europe (more European than the Ukraine), whereas Morocco & Algeria are fake Arabs - which doesn't mean they're gay (aside from their gay king and gay commies respectively), but it could also blossom into a kind of Berber nationalism.
But the heartland of the Arab world is the fertile crescent of Egypt - Syria - Iraq, and that seems to hold fairly well. Egypt indeed acted as a confluence of Arab nationalism, until their final submission to the Saudi-Israeli axis in 1979. And with the current demographic explosion of Egypt, I could see a future where its young people are subsumed by more violent ideologies. Case in point - ISIS (again, the feature of Islam is that a large percentage of the population are ready to kill and die, unlike the "right-wingers" of Russia or Utah.)
Regarding China - the greatest argument against the PRC would be the fact that princess Xi Mingze lives in America. Whereas your points all seem rather weak - isn't it the consensus view that the Americans gave Chiang Kai-Shek massive amounts of weaponry and money that were lost in corruption? And after Chiang's defeat, it only made geopolitical sense in the Cold War to support Mao Zedong against Soviet Russia - nobody cares about the useless little RoC at that point.
Regarding the later connection of China coupled with the deindustrialisation of America - that's the suicidal nature of Christian capitalists. I would choose to believe the most widely-held view - that the Westerners tried to corrupt China into globohomo with their warm embrace strategy. After all, that's what worked for Soviet Russia. Hasn't worked for China.
(And no, the Corvid argument does not cut it - the famous response to the plague is in the natural interest of any state on the planet, the synchronicity is not an argument for a world government's existence.)
Finally, regarding the solutions. I would view the nexus of germinating future ideologies in the community of... hateful incels. This is a nascent perfect storm, covering some of the most essential dogmas of neo-Christianity such as sexual equality and non-violence. And normies are only going to swell the incel ranks. KHHV is the Marxism of tomorrow! (Andrew Tate approves, Kynosarges applauds.)
https://incels.wiki/w/Demographics_of_inceldom
Typos: to solve for; small minded; Rothschild owned; to to frame; want now want; it’s ability; the Rockefeller's.
P.S. I have to add a few words on Iran - their society looks ridiculously ripe for the picking. And yet, your focus on the banks is blinding you to that fact. Why not pick up Türkiye? Doesn't their recent genocide of Armenians win them a few points in your book? Or their ban on gay parades in Constantinople? Or take Pakistan (another country that rejects the existence of Armenia btw) - their government may cuck in, yet their citizens seem to have hearts of a lion.
> A Barelvi mosque was built in 2014 in Islamabad named after Mumtaz Qadri, who assassinated the Punjab governor Salman Taseer for defending Noreen. Qadri was convicted by the Islamabad High Court, sentenced to death and hanged in February 2016.
> The general population was less sympathetic towards Noreen. Several signs were erected in Sheikhupura and other rural areas declaring support for the blasphemy laws, including one that called for Noreen to be beheaded. Mohammad Saleem, a member of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan party, organized a demonstration in Rawalpindi and led a small crowd chanting, "Hang her, hang her." In December 2010, a month after Noreen's conviction, Maulana Yousaf Qureshi, the Muslim cleric of the Mohabaat Khan Mosque in Peshawar, announced a Rs. 500000 (US$1,700) Pakistani rupee bounty to anyone who would kill her. One survey reported that around 10 million Pakistanis had said that they would be willing to personally kill her out of either religious conviction or for the reward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi_blasphemy_case?useskin=vector
Let alone the Rohingya genocide at the hands of mindful Buddhist Burmese, or the current civil war in the Sudan! Those are examples of a real fight against Christianity! Not money-grubbing central bank accounting.