So at the beginning of last month, Owen Jones and his left-wing loonie followers marched in London to counter-demonstrate UKIP and Tommy Robinson’s ‘Brexit Betrayal’ march, with Jones’ counter-demonstration being a march ‘Against fascism’ and an aim to get ‘Racists of our Streets’. Straight away there’s a problem, because neither UKIP or Tommy Robinson are fascist or racist. Of course both the former and the latter have coherently different political opinions to Owen Jones, but that hardly makes Robinson or the UKIP party white supremacist thugs.
After personally following Owen Jones for a few years since I read one of his books, I have noticed that he ‘over uses’ the fascist and racist label. It seems that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot in his opinion. This has always irritated me because ‘fascism’ is a powerful concept. Fascism means pure hatred, only the worst of satanic people identify themselves as fascists, yet it seems that Owen Jones thinks anyone ‘right of centre’ is a fascist.
I finally snapped when I found out Jones was organising this anti-fascist counter-demonstration so I sent him a rather lengthy email. I criticised Jones’ ‘fascist labelling of Tommy Robinson’ and I asked him to meet me and personally debate me. I sent the email in a positive tone being as polite as possible despite how annoyed with Owen I was, because I assumed that this was the best way in which to first get a response, and then further healthy discourse between the two of us.
Here it is:
Hope you are well and are having a nice weekend.
My name is Jack Mitchell, I am a freelance writer, I run my own blog and I have been studying Islam in my spare time since I graduated with a politics degree in 2016. I have been following you closely for a while now after I read your book ‘The Establishment’, and whilst our opinions may differ with great significance; I do appreciate the quality of your writing.
The reason I am contacting you is because lately on Twitter you have been frustrating and angering me quite a lot. I understand tomorrow you are organising a march against fascism and Tommy Robinson, but that doesn’t make sense to me because the former and latter contradict eachother. I would happily join you on a march against fascism, but I am a Tommy Robinson supporter, so where does that leave me?
Tommy Robinson is not a fascist. The more I see you on Twitter the more I see you using the fascist label inappropiately and it is really frustrating. Fascism is a powerful word, and an important one to me personally because my Grandad (who was an immigrant btw) fought in WW2 to help defeat the Nazi fascists. That’s what fascism means; people who are Nazis, people who committ mass murder of people because they are of a different race and/or religion
When I see you on Twitter labelling people as fascist far too easily, it makes me look at the photo of my Grandad on the wall next to his war medal and I think “what was the point in my Grandad risking his life fighting fascism if people like Owen Jones are today going to label anyone centre of right a fascist?” My Grandad fought to stop actual fascists, not people like Tommy Robinson.
Listen, there is a 5000 word article I wrote on my blog last year, jackmitchellpolitics.com, explaining why Tommy Robinson is not a fascist. It would be fantastic if you could read that. All he has ever done is speak out against Islam, which is itself a fascist political ideology in my opinion. However, I do not want us to debate our opposing opinions via email.
So lets meet! I would love to meet you for a coffee Owen and we can discuss Tommy Robinson, Islam and any other political matter where our opinions vary. If you are up for that my phone number is+*********274 or contact me via this email (email@example.com).
I look forward to your reply, and I hope the demonstration goes well tomorrow even though I oppose what its about.
Of course Owen Jones did not reply!
Therefore afterwards I started to chase him up and I made sure I reminded him of my email on every single tweet he wrote on Twitter, by replying to his tweets with screenshots of my email.
I carried on this tactic for about 3 weeks. Every single tweet Owen wrote I would reply with the same message and screenshots of my email. Either he never noticed my comments on his tweets, or he just blatantly ignored them, however I did enjoy some tasty debates with Owen Jones’ supporters and followers on Twitter. My favourite moment was when a transgender lad/lass referred to me as a ‘hills have eyes Nazi freak’…
I never expected a fair debate with Owen Jones’ followers on Twitter so luckily enough I took the insults I received from them in good humour…
And then finally after 3 weeks of persistent nagging of Owen Jones to reply to my email, I came across this on Twitter…
No I never seriously expected Owen Jones to meet me for coffee and discuss our contrasting opinions on Tommy Robinson and Islam. But I did at least expect a reply to my email, and if I wasn’t going to get that, then perhaps maybe some sort of recognition of the dozens of times I chased him up on Twitter seeking a reply. But no, absolutely nothing from Owen Jones what so ever.
In a democracy people with contrasting opinions discuss and debate. Of course democracy also means you can ignore other opinions, but that in my opinion is cowardly and soft. It makes you a weak loser.
This is why I take victory in the fact that Owen Jones blocked me without acknowledging what I had said to him. I suppose its best for me to assume that he did so because he didn’t want to admit that I was right and he was wrong.
Silencing people with different opinions is generally a tactic of Owen Jones and people on the left, that is why people at the Jones’ counter-demonstration my email was in relation to called for Tommy Robinson to be banned from talking. You can imagine who those people stereo-typically were at the counter-demonstration; white middle-class feminist snobs who need Britain to remain in the EU so that migrants working in Pret a Manger can carry on serving them coffee on their way to work in London.
I like to think I was mature regarding the way in which I went about emailing Owen Jones and seeking his attention. I should never have expected the same from him however, the video below proving how much of an immature brat he is…
Owen Jones is a childish cry baby who throws tantrums when people have a different opinion. He tries to silence people who have contrasting opinions, proven by how he has acted with regards to my approach and his personal vendetta against Tommy Robinson. Unfortunately in our politically correct society, loonies like him get more of a public platform than those people with common-sense.
What would make me angry is if I find out he replied to my tweets or acknowledged them after he had blocked me so that I would never be able to see so. He could make me out to be a complete mug to his 761,500 followers but I would never know. That would be a completely cowardly thing to do… so I wouldn’t be surprised if he has already done exactly that.
Throughout this post I shall talk about Sadiq Khan and his career in law and politics. Khan is a controversial figure because whilst levels of crime and terrorism have increased during his role as Mayor of London, his previous career position as a human rights lawyer has never been ignored due to the Islamic extremists he represented. Obviously not all of Khan’s legal clients were Islamists or even Muslim at all, however I shall outline some of the radicals he sympathised with in courts; not all of them because there are so many, before reviewing him as the Mayor of London.
In 2001 Khan represented Louis Farrakhan, an Islamist banned from the UK who described white people as ‘devils’ and called a Hitler ‘a very great man’. This was because of Hitler’s genocide of Jews, with of course Hitler himself known to use Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a role model in his treatment of Nazi Germany’s Jewish population. Khan’s legal role with Farrakhan was the attempt in getting his UK ban overturned. Funny how Khan wanted entry into the UK for a fascist anti-Semitic Jew hating Muslim, but yet he campaigned for a ban on Donald Trump coming to the UK earlier this year.
Sadiq Khan also defended one of the Islamists behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Zacarias Moussaoui is currently serving 6 life sentences without parole in America due to his participation in 9/11, with Khan being a legal consultant for Moussaoui and the only practicing Muslim on Moussaoui’s defence team.
Whilst defending the extradition of convicted terrorist Babar Ahmed to America, Sadiq Khan was seen to attend four meetings with Stop Political Terror; a now defunct Islamist organisation who had strong connections with Al Qaeda and Anwar al-Awlaki. These meetings with Stop Political Terror saw Khan share a platform numerous times with Suliman Gani here at home in London. The Tooting based Imam is controversial because of his radical opinions, however the extent of how radical those opinions are debateable. David Cameron was once forced to apologise for claiming Gani had links to ISIS.
Next on the list is Sheikh Yousef al-Qawadari, a Qatar-based Egyptian Islamic scholar who is banned from The UK, the US and France. Sadiq Khan spoke out in support of this Islamist despite him decreeing that homosexuality is a crime as well as praising the work of suicide bombers, and himself travelling to Palestine to support the terrorist group Hamas. Not only has Sadiq Khan previously sympathised with al-Qawadari but he has before denied that al-Qawadari is an Islamist altogether, despite al-Qawadari often citing Islamic texts calling for Jews to be killed.
Finally we come to Sadiq Khan’s ex-brother in-law and the most prolific terrorist organisation based in Britain; Al-Muhajiroun. Khan’s ex-brother in-law Makbool Javaid is an Islamist who was a member of Al-Muhajiroun until the terror group was banned in Britain in 2005. He is most known for his speeches in Trafalgar Square in the late 1990’s where he issued a Fatwa calling on Muslims for a ‘Holy War’ against the UK and the US. Just because Al-Muhajiroun was a British terror group does not mean they were not extreme and unparalleled to those based in the Middle-East. They were formerly led by Anjem Choudary; the UK’s most infamous Islamic cleric, and they have connections with Lee Rigby’s slaughterers. Sadiq Khan has tried to distance himself from his former brother in-law and Al-Muhajiroun since joining the Labour Party and subsequently gaining more power in politics. However, he has been known to share a platform with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim in more recent times numerously; another Islamist with previous connections to Al-Muhajiroun.
The examples I have used of the Islamists and extremists who Sadiq Khan has previously associated himself with; including his brother in-law, are just a few examples from a long list of many. That long list of many can be found at Zerohedge if you wish to see further proof of Khan’s sympathy with Muslim extremists. However since Khan’s days of representing Islamists as a lawyer, his career in politics has progressed meaning that he has had to distance himself from the extremists he associated with, including his brother in-law who he hasn’t seen for ten years.
This brings us on to Sadiq Khan’s role as London Mayor. The fact is that for the 2 and a half years that Khan has been Mayor, crime and terror in London have disproportionately increased. Since last year, murder was reported to have risen by 44%, gun crime 23%, knife crime 21% and an 18% increase in the number of rapes have been recorded. For the first time ever this year there was more murders committed in London than New York City. On top of that, the number of acid attacks in London has increased massively, with more acid attacks in the borough of Newham, East London, than anywhere else in London. Newham is thought to have roughly a 30% Muslim population and an 80% ethnic minority population as a whole (80% ethnic minority kind of contradicts itself). The number of people arrested for terror related offences also rose by 60% in 2017 compared with 2016, with MI5 General Director Andrew Parker saying that the threat of Jihadists in Britain “is the highest he’s seen in his 34 year career”. The London Met are also now resorting to ramming fleeing criminals on mopeds. Criminals on mopeds has been a huge problem since Sadiq Khan has been Mayor of London, and the fact that the police are now resorting to ramming criminals off their mopeds shows how desperate they are to start regaining control of crime in the capital.
The way Sadiq Khan has handled the crime wave in London has been poor to say the least. Khan has wasted the Police’s limited resources of time and money on the ludicrous attempt of combatting so-called ‘hate speech’’. Hate speech is just simply a way of protecting ‘snowflakes’ from being offended by any opinion that differs from their own. People are getting arrested throughout London for posts they put on social media which are deemed offensive to some people. It does not matter if those posts on social media in question are the general opinion of those who are posting them, or even if they are facts. People are still locked up and silenced. The concept of hate speech simply contradicts the freedom us Westerners enjoy in democratic countries.
One example of hate speech is Islamophobia (in my opinion ‘Islamophobia’ is not actually a word because a phobia is an irrational fear, and fear of Islam as a fascist political ideology is not irrational). Islamophobia has been defined as racist by a recent government report, and the EU say criticism of Islam is no longer protected by Freedom of Speech, meaning I can no longer criticise Islam even with facts. For example, it is now illegal to refer to Prophet Muhammad as a rapist or a paedophile, even though the fact is he married A’ishah when she was 6 years old and raped her when she was 9. He also raped the wives of the thousands of Jews, Pagans and Christians he slaughtered in 7th century Arabia. I expect the Old Bill to knock on my door anytime now.
Hate speech is being used by Sadiq Khan to silence anyone who criticises his ‘religion’. One example is by him referring to ex-Muslim Shazia Hobbs as a hate preacher. Shazia Hobbs is actually quite the opposite of anything hateful. Her Story of escaping from Islam after a forced-marriage and now working to help victims of child abuse in the form of FGM is somewhat inspirational (the video link below of a short interview with Shazia Hobbs is a *MUST WATCH*). Shame on you Khan you utterly pathetic man.
Of course you can’t blame all of London’s rapid increase in crime on Sadiq Khan; that would be unfair seen as he’s only been Mayor for two and a half years. London was already a wreck before Khan took over as Mayor and the fact that London was a wreck before Khan took over as a Mayor is the reason he was elected. London has been on a downwards spiral for decades due to successive Conservative and Labour governments allowing consistent mass migration into the capital at the attempt of a liberal utopia. The expanding multi-cultural society in London has paved the way for an increase in crime, terrorism and a new-wave of gang warfare.
It was of course the multi-cultural demographic that Sadiq Khan aimed for during his Mayor campaign, or more precisely the single-cultural demographic areas of London where Muslims have segregated themselves into high profile Islamic areas. The Muslim population of London was just over 600,000 people in 2001 and ten years later the Muslim population of London had nearly doubled to over a million people. It is hard to say what the Muslim population of London is now because it has been 7 years since the last census, however one can assume that London’s Muslims must now be somewhere between 1.5 and 2million people. The increase in the number of London’s Muslims made it easier for Khan to win the Mayor election, which is why Khan played on the fact that he is Muslim himself in order to win votes.
For the first time this decade, white Britons are a minority in London. Non-white skin colour and foreign nationality does not mean people are more likely to commit crime; that is a racist and xenophobic assumption. However, the poverty and cultural influences that come with non-white and foreign people means that they are more likely to have a criminal identity. It is no coincidence that crime in London is now worse than ever at a time when white Britons are a minority. However, no doubt that Sadiq Khan will be re-elected again for a second term as Mayor if he stands, what with his guaranteed votes in London’s ever expanding foreign Muslim communities.
No! Of course Earth isn’t flat why would you even open the link and start reading this post!?
However, I thought it would be fun today if we could look into the Flat Earth Theory and see what ‘flat earthers’ are arguing.
We shall start this post by introducing the Flat Earth Theory and highlighting the main points of argument, before talking about NASA and more precisely the rubbish that comes out of NASA’s mouth. Let me just get this out there… I do generally think NASA is full of shit. I think at least some photos are fake and at least some videos are fake. I am sceptical of NASA missions and the moon landings, but my scepticism of NASA and space exploration in general does not make me more inclined to think that the Earth is flat. So let’s talk about NASA and then we’ll get on to the real hardcore flat earth stuff- mainly discussing the horizon, the sun, the moon and stars, and after that you may be scratching your head thinking “wow maybe it is true! Maybe Earth is actually flat”. And then I will bring you back to reality by explaining how the earth is round, again by primarily using the horizon, the sun, the moon and the stars, which is where you’ll be thinking “wow can’t believe I actually thought Earth might be flat”.
So, you might think the Flat Earth Theory has overtime lost ground due to an ongoing expansion into the realms of science and technology. But more people today believe in a flat Earth than ever before. You also might assume that the Flat Earth Theory derives from religion and the bible, however philosophers were debating the flat Earth/round Earth argument in ancient times long before Christianity existed, and there are verses in the bible which imply that the Earth is spherical.
The founder of modern-day Flat Earth Theory is arguably Samuel Rowbotham who we shall talk about more shortly, however Wilber Glen Voliva was the first advocate of modern day Flat Earth Theory; him being a devout Christian who governed the community of Zion, Illinois at the start of the 20th century; teaching the flat Earth doctrine through local Catholic schools. Voliva famously offered anyone $5000 who could prove that the Earth was a globe, and the main proponent of his argument was the fact that the Sun was only 3000 miles from the Earth’s surface, rather than the 92 million miles we have been taught to believe.
The Fact that flat-earthers believe that Earth is a flat disc means that there isn’t a north and south pole, therefore they think that everything on Earth surrounds the arctic circle and Antarctica is a giant ice ring which surrounds Earth.
The ‘ring of Antarctica’ is also in fact a giant ice wall 150 feet high, which of course stops people falling off the edge of Earth. The Antarctic ice wall is guarded to stop people exploring the area- by whom is up for debate. Some Flat-earthers say NASA guard the ice wall, some say its guarded by joint trans-national government agencies. The only consensus regarding the ice wall is the fact that all the world governments know about the Antarctic ice wall and they work together to protect it from ordinary citizens.
The Flat Earth Theory also involves a dome shape over the Earth in which the Sun and Moon are inside rotating within the dome. There is argument as to how far away the dome actually is from the surface of the Earth, because let’s not forget that if the Sun really is 3000 miles like Wilber Glen Voliva says, then the dome that covers our flat earth must be further away than that, although Flat-earthers do try and provide evidence of a dome covering the earth which would suggest that the dome is much closer than that and the sun and moon are in fact outside the dome, as seen with the video below:
The Dome Theory brings us on to NASA and the potential lies of NASA, because obviously if there really was a dome covering a flat Earth then Earth would be a closed system and space exploration would be impossible. Let me just say I think that the first ever moon landing with Neil Armstrong was more likely to be fake than real. But let’s not get into that that’s a whole other conspiracy theory altogether. We’ll start off with fake images.
Maybe I am being a bit gullible maybe there is genuine scientific reason for the differences in the NASA images of Earth. I suppose the type of camera and photography used will definitely have varied over the eight photographs. Is the distance of the camera from Earth the same in all eight of those photographs shown above the same? Does an increase in pollution over time contribute to changing colours? I’m starting to sound like I’m debating myself now but I still stand by my opinion; all the images of Earth above look fake and someone needs to prove me wrong…
However, you can’t deny that these are fake…
Yes I apologize I know I have gone way off track this is supposed to be about the Flat Earth Theory. I just get too excited when it comes to conspiracy theories.
However, the reason I talk about ‘NASA lies’ in this post is because Flat-earthers manipulate the bullshit given to us by NASA and use it to back up their theory of flat Earth. Fortunately people like me who have sense can see past that and be right in the middle… just because I generally believe NASA is fake and I do not trust them does not mean I believe in a flat Earth.
Flat Earth- Horizon
So, when it comes to flat Earth, Flat-earthers believe that the horizon is flat and our planet has no curvature. What about boats that go over the horizon at sea you might say? Well Flat-earthers argue that boats do not go over the horizon they just in fact move so far away that they can no longer be seen with the naked eye (so if I buy a powerful enough telescope I will be able to see Mount Everest?).
As mentioned in the introduction, Samuel Rowbotham was the first advocate of Flat Earth Theory and he conducted the first ever Bedford Level Experiment; a test carried out along a 6 mile stretch of the Old Bedford River in Cambridgeshire. Rowbotham first did this in 1838, however the test has been carried out many times since on the 6 mile stretch of the Old Bedford River with differing results.
Below is a video of a recent Bedford Level Experiment carried out by modern day Flat-earthers in 2016.
When it comes to air travel, flat earthers believe that if the Earth was a sphere, pilots would have to dip the nose of their aeroplanes at least every 5 minutes to keep in line with the Earth’s curvature. Last year a well-known nutcase amongst the flat Earth community, D. Marble, had one of his many videos go viral after he took a spirit level on a plane and carried out his own little experiment. Bless him.
As for flight paths, well Flat Earth Theory states that the flight paths aeroplanes take prove that Earth is not a globe. If you look at Google Earth, it does seem odd that the Johannesburg-Perth flight refuels at Dubai, the Johannesburg-Santiago flight refuels at Senegal and the Santiago-Sydney flight refuel in L.A.
Stars and Satellites
The Flat Earth Theory in all fairness hardly has anything to say with regards to stars, the endless hours I have spent watching flat Earth videos on YouTube primarily focus on the horizon and also the sun and the moon, although stars are thought to be a mere 3100 miles above the Earth’s surface, rather than the assumed 310,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, miles distance from Earth we are taught to believe. I did find one page on the Flat Earth Society’s * website claiming that stars rotate around Earth’s central point (North Pole) like the Sun and Moon- https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars
Flat-earthers have more to say with regards to satellites however, because they think satellites are a hoax. There are supposedly nearly 5000 satellites orbiting the Earth, most of which are dead but some used mainly for communicational purposes. Flat-earthers argue that all the functions in which satellites fulfil are in fact carried out by various stations on ground level. “Why do these 5000 satellites never crash into each other?” is one of the frequent questions we hear along with “How come we never see satellites when looking at the sky with telescopes?”
Sun and Moon
With the Sun and Moon supposedly only being 3000 miles above ‘our flat Earth’ they are both allowed to do one full rotation above the Earth in a 24 hour period.
We have come to understand with our spherical Earth that the Sun’s distance from Earth can vary slightly pending on the Globe’s tilt, which is why we have seasons. So how do Flat-earthers explain seasons? Well one popular theory is that the Sun circles above the Earth closer to the centre in Summer before gradually spiralling outwards for 6 months so that the Sun circles above Earth closer to the Antarctic ice ring, then the ‘outward spiralling’ is reversed for the next 6 months after that. This would also explain why seasons are opposite in the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere and also the Equinox.
As for the moon, Flat-earthers believe that the fact that we only ever see one side of the moon backs up their theory as well as cool moonlight. Experiments carried out by Flat-earthers (videos on YouTube) find that objects that lie in moonlight are actually cooler than objects lying in the shade, and because moonlight is supposedly a reflection of sunlight on the moon then surely objects on Earth in moonlight would be warmer than in the shade. There is differentiation amongst Flat-earthers about what the Moon actually is. Some say it is a flat disc in the sky, some say it is a light in the sky shining from Earth, and some say it is a hologram.
Spherical Earth- Horizon
Now that we have gone through the key arguments of Flat Earth Theory we shall now go through the key counter-arguments of spherical Earth and likewise we shall start with the horizon. First of all, I cannot exaggerate to you enough how big Earth actually is. This means that the horizon will always look flat where ever you are! 40,000 feet high is how high you need to be to even start to see the Earth’s curve, so even on a commercial airline which generally flies at 36,000 feet the horizon will always look flat. This is not because Earth IS flat, this is because Earth is bloody massive.
It is important when talking about the horizon to talk about mirage effects because this is something the Flat Earth Theory blatantly ignores. When cold air is near water it can create a mirage because temperature differences will cause light to bend. Flat-earthers unfortunately do not realise this, or like I said they blatantly ignore, because one of their big arguments is that certain skylines can be seen over water which should not be able to be seen, for example the Chicago Skyline over Lake Michigan. This obviously means to them that Earth is flat.
Stars and Satellites
The opposite of what you would call the Flat Earth Model (Geocentric Model) is the Heliocentric Model and the Heliocentric Model is taught to us in education as being scientific fact. It is the idea that every planet in our solar system orbits around the sun, rather than the Geocentric Model where every planet as well as the sun and other stars outside of our supposed ‘solar system’ orbit around Earth. One advantage the Heliocentric Model has over the Geocentric Model is that future events can be predicted, such as eclipses.
Only the Heliocentric Model can explain why different stars can be seen from both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Despite the Earth spinning on its tilt over a 24 hour period and the Earth orbiting 1 full rotation around the Sun over a year period, the North Pole and the South Pole remain stationary in the same position all the time. This means that the big dipper for example can only be seen from the Northern Hemisphere, and that Sagittarius can only be seen from the Southern Hemisphere.
As for satellites, well the simple fact that 5000 satellites orbit the Earth is proof that Earth is a sphere. That is what NASA say which is why I’m personally a bit sceptical. I’m not saying satellites are a myth, but I need more convincing. However let’s just assume that there is no myth, therefore satellites in the sky prove that Earth is a globe.
Sun and Moon
When it comes to the Sun, Flat-earthers argue that the sun does not rise and set over the horizon, it merely moves too far away out of distance when supposedly “setting” so that people lose sight of the Sun as it circles above the Earth, which thus gives us night time. In my opinion this is the worst flat Earth argument and the least persuasive to anyone flirting with the flat Earth idea. If it was true that the Sun simply moved in and out of sight as it circled above the Earth, then we would see the Sun get distinctly bigger and smaller depending on what time of day it was. When night time came and the Sun set.. no sorry I mean when night time came and the Sun moved too far away out of our distance, surely the sun would get smaller and smaller until there was a vanishing point? However in reality the Sun always stays the same size morning until night. This also means that by flat Earth logic, we would be able to see the Sun with a telescope at night time.
As for the moon, there are disputes amongst the flat Earth community as to what the Moon actually is, but in the common-sense community everyone agrees that the moon is spherical. For the Flat-earthers who think that the Moon is a flat disc, well they are wrong because no matter where you are on Earth or no matter where the Moon is in orbit, the Moon always looks circular. If the Moon was a flat disc then yes it would also be circular when directly above your head, but as it moved away during its rotation above our flat Earth it would become more and more elliptical. Fake news. The Moon would also shrink to a vanishing point over the horizon, just like the Sun, if it rotated above ‘our flat Earth’.
As for the Flat-earthers who believe that the Moon gives off its own light, well the Moon’s craters debunk that argument. If you zoom in on the Moon with a telescope you will see that there are shadows in the Moon’s craters, meaning that light is coming from an external source. Probably the Sun.
The reason we only ever see the same side of the moon is because the Moon rotates at the same rate as it orbits the Earth. Also because of the fact that the moon is so far away. If the Moon was as close to Earth as Flat-earthers believe; just a few thousand miles away, then people in Argentina and Canada for example; which are two countries in the same time zone, would see the Moon at the same time but see completely different sides to the Moon. That is simply not the case.
Finally, when talking about both the Sun and the Moon, Flat-earthers fail to explain what force keeps the Sun and the Moon moving in a circular rotation above ‘our flat Earth’. Common-sensers know what force keeps the Earth orbiting around the Sun and what force keeps the Moon orbiting around Earth, and that force ladies and gentlemen is what you call gravity!
So I’ve made it quite clear that I do not believe in the Flat Earth Theory, however that does not mean that I think that the Flat Earth Theory is stupid or that individual Flat-earthers are dumb (even though D. Marble took a spirit level on a 2 hour plane journey believing that it proved the Earth to be flat!). I have only covered a small proportion of the flat Earth-round Earth debate, so if you have found this post interesting you should go divulge into the debate furthermore; there is so many videos to watch and material to read, and I think the Flat Earth Theory does sometimes propose a convincing argument which is why I do not dismiss it as being stupid.
Most of the Flat-earther arguments are later debunked, but not all of them. One clever analogy I have come across for the flat Earth-round Earth debate is that of a crossword puzzle, because sometimes answers from both sides of the argument are valid and they cross over each other. However the fact is, if Earth really was flat there would have to be so many people lying to us right now it would be impossible to keep secret- not just world government officials but also pilots and scientists. Although remember, no matter how little you believe in a flat Earth or no matter how stupid you think the Flat Earth Theory is, don’t believe everything NASA is telling you.
*There is much scepticism amongst the flat Earth community regarding Flat Earth Society and most Flat-earthers appear to disagree with what the FES say, for example; the fact that ‘our flat Earth’ is constantly rising upwards which explains ‘the myth of gravity’. Some Flat-earthers believe that the FES was created by NASA or maybe even the Illuminati to purposely make the Flat Earth Theory look stupid
The freedom of the press should be appreciated throughout the West because it is part of Western democracy and free speech. With a free press there will always be media bias, however the bias the mainstream media have shown when reporting on Donald Trump’s presidential actions have reached a level beyond ridiculousness which can only result in sincere counter-productivity to the democracy of American people.
This week I switched on the news and saw Donald Trump shaking hands with Vladimir Putin at their summit in Helsinki and my immediate reaction was along the lines of “wow what a moment in history, two leaders of staunch rival nation-states; two countries that have hated one another ever since WW2, making friends making allies… what does this mean for the future opportunities of world peace (excited emoji face inserted here)”
Then I saw newspaper headlines from around the world…
Coward, traitor, and non-patriotic are the words used to describe Trump in his meeting with Vladimir Putin (non-patriotic? seriously? It was the American patriots who voted Trump into power!). All this because Trump and Putin had a healthy and friendly summit. Its as if critics from the press want America to go to war with Russia rather than be at peace!
Trump and Putin are trying to start off fresh relations between the two countries, relations that have previously involved dangerous high tension ever since former KGB agent Vladimir Putin first came to power. Imagine this; a future bi-polar world order dominated by two nuclear ALLIES of America and Russia, opposite to the bi-polar world order experienced during the Cold War.
Maybe its true that Putin interfered in the American elections, although Putin staunchly denies it. But even if so, was Trump meant to call Putin a liar on global TV? That would have ended any chance of a future relationship between America and Russia, and that would have sufficed even harsher criticism for Trump from the mainstream media.
Trump outlined examples of how America and Russia could work together, for instance on tackling terrorism and sharing future anti-terror information, with Russia having been repeatedly attacked by Islamic extremists for the previous two decades. In 2004 Islamists held 1000 people hostage at a school in North Caucasas, Russia, resulting in more than 300 people dead 186 of which were school children. In 2010, 40 people were killed by suicide bombers on the Moscow underground system, as were on the St Petersburg underground system last year.
If only the mainstream media/Western Islamic sympathisers put more effort into reporting actual news stories like these instead of trying to undermine the democratic American vote.
When the mainstream media reported on the Trump-Putin summit with their inherent determination at smearing Donald Trump, they failed to notice the future opportunities that an American-Russian alliance could bring. Russia could have a major influence on the abandonment of North Korea’s nuclear weapon programme, with Russia being important on the basis of North Korea’s economic survival, but yet having nothing to gain from North Korea’s nuclear weapons.
Trump could also acquire Putin’s help in withdrawing American troops from Syria, as well as Putin potentially being able to convince Iran to withdraw their troops. The exchange would result in Bashar Al Assad remaining in power of Syria, which is more than fair seen as the Syrian people overwhelmingly democratically elected Assad.
Media bias has always been a part of democratic politics with media outlets; newspapers in particular, always aligning to certain political parties or certain sides of the political spectrum. However since Donald Trump became President Media bias has reached a whole new level with constant criticism of every policy Trump carries out and constant smearing by the American press, headed of course by CNN. Fake news. It is not only in America, all British news channels and the vast majority of British newspapers are anti-Trump and now Sky TV no longer have any right-wing news channels on their package after dropping Fox News. So much for democracy.
In Britain last week thousands of people were out on the streets of London protesting at the arrival of Donald Trump in Britain ahead of a summit with Theresa May. The effort the press went into to cover the story of these anti-Trump protesters was ‘over the top’ to say the least. Live coverage of the protests all day long. Funny how the news channels couldn’t do the same when similar numbers of people from Football Lads Alliance marched in protest of Islamic Extremism, also in London. Not even 30 seconds of coverage on the news for the FLA. It was exactly the same with the Free Tommy Robinson protests THE DAY AFTER the anti-Trump protests, also in London.
As for the anti-Trump protests in London last week, where were they when Saudi Arabian leader Mohammed Bin Salman visited Great Britain this year, a man who governs a regime where women aren’t allowed to leave their house without a male companion and where woman are tortured in prison for removing their hijabs? Where were they when Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Britain in May, a man who imprisons journalists for writing news reports criticising his opinion? Where were they when Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited the UK recently, a man who wants to make himself ‘dictator for life’ by eliminating any future democratic elections in China?
I’ll tell you where they were- they were at home not giving a shit. The only reason these protesters were in London last week was because they’ve jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon, a bandwagon which was made fashionable by hypocrite political commentator Owen Jones, hypocrite Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and of course the hypocrite mainstream media.
Just look at the result of Donald Trump’s approach to the Korean conflict. Controversial at times yes of course, but look whats happening now; North Korea are set to abandon their nuclear weapons programme, and North and South Korea are going through the process of peace talks for the first time in the history of modern civilisation! Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize for Donald Trump in my opinion. Before you start laughing, I bet if it was the exact same situation regarding the Korean peace talks 5 years ago with Obama as American President he would have won a Nobel Peace Prize. Yes I know he’s already won one I can’t remember what for though. Because he is black? It surely wasn’t because of the thousands of innocent middle-eastern civilians Obama killed with drone attacks? No? Probably because he is black.
I know that through reading this article it may seem that I am against the freedom of the press. Well I am not. I am not a communist and I am not a fascist, I believe that free press and free speech are both important aspects of a healthy democracy. Even media bias is good, people will favour certain media outlets based on their own political opinions. However I feel that since Donald Trump became President, media bias is no longer restricted to different certain media outlets, whether they be newspapers or news channels. It is instead bias seen throughout the mainstream media and the general press. This needs to change because as the way things are, the free press in which the mainstream media has always embraced is starting to look like the press seen within an authoritarian state-ruled society. Propaganda corrupting people’s political knowledge.
Throughout the world right now Muslims are observing Ramadan, starting last week on the 17th up until next month in June on the 14th. Ramadan is the 9th month in the Islamic calendar commemorating the revelation of the Qur’an from Allah to Prophet Muhammad, being one of the five pillars of Islam. During Ramadan Muslims are required to refrain from eating, drinking liquids, smoking and sexual relations during the daylight hours, typically 7am-7pm.
Those are the basics of what Ramadan involves for Muslims, and from the requirements of Ramadan it is impossible to see any factor that could possibly influence violence of any sort that could result in Islamic extremism or terrorism. Islamists don’t commit terror attacks because they’re hungry or horny.
However all you have to do is look at the statistics for yourselves. Lasts years Ramadan coincided with 8 people killed in the London Bridge terror attack as well as 17 killed at an ice cream shop in Baghdad, with ISIS claiming over 300 attacks during Ramadan last year in 12 different countries. The year before was even more deadly because more than 200 people were killed in a Baghdad suicide bomb attack during the 2016 Ramadan, and ISIS also claimed the responsibility for over 400 deadly attacks in 16 different countries during Ramadan that year.
Also, today as I write this (22nd May) marks the 5 year anniversary of the beheading and murder of Lee Rigby, and also the 1 year anniversary of the Manchester terrorist attack.
The reason there is seen to be more Islamic terror attacks during the month of Ramadan is in fact because Ramadan is not only a month observed by Muslims to commemorate the revelation of the Qur’an to Prophet Muhammad, it is also known as “the holy month of Jihad”.
In the early days of Islam, key conflicts were won by Prophet Muhammad and his descending Caliphs, most notably the Battle of Badr (year 624), but also the conquest of Mecca (year 630), the siege of Constantinople (year 675), the notorious invasion of Spain (year 714) and Tarik Ibn Zayed’s resulting conquest (year 715), the victory of Salahuddin against invading crusaders (year 1206), and Mamluk’s victory in the Battle of Ain Jiloot (year 1272).
The Battle of Badr occurred once Prophet Muhammad and his jihad followers returned to Mecca from Medina. Muhammad had originally left Mecca for Medina trying to preach his new spiritual religion of Islam in an attempt to gain followers. With little success in doing so, Medina saw Muhammad revolt his new religion into the ‘political ideology of Islam’; using jihad and violence as a method of converting people in Medina to Islam. This allowed Muhammad and his Muslims to return to Mecca and defeat the Quraish in the Battle of Badr, essentially making Prophet Muhammad the King of Arabia.
Jihadists today often give reference to the Muslim victory in the Battle of Badr as the turning point in history in which Islam was allowed to prosper and begin to take control of Arabia, despite Muslims in that battle being numerically outnumbered. Compare it to the battle of Agincourt in which the English defeated the French despite being numerically outnumbered, and thus allowing English dominance in Western Europe.
Throughout the history of Islam, Islamic victories in battle have tended to occur during Ramadan. This is because Muslims are taught to be courageous and fearless during Ramadan, and bravery during Ramadan in Arabic conflicts has won Muslims many conflicts whilst being ‘the underdogs’, which today are reflected on with pride and admiration by Muslim people.
Of course it is not brave or courageous for Muslim extremists to commit terrorism, it is nothing short of cowardly. However the Muslim extremists see themselves as being brave by committing terror, and they believe that their death through jihad will see them rewarded in the afterlife by Allah.
“So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory- We will bestow upon him a great reward” (Qur’an, chapter 4, verse 74)
The above verse taken from my copy of the Qur’an may explain why Islamists believe that their death in jihad will bring them reward from Allah in the afterlife; the gardens of paradise.
So from now on just remember that Ramadan isn’t all about fasting, refraining from smoking and sexual relations, or as you might read in the Independent… “love and generosity” (do me a favour). Ramadan is also a month of violence. Ramadan is a month of remembrance and reflection regarding the wars that Muslims have won throughout the history of Islam. Ramadan is a month where Muslims are ‘brave’ and fight. Ramadan is a month where Islamists commit terror.
The Syrian war is unique and remarkably bizarre in the fact that the countries and religious movements involved are fighting each other, but yet are supporting one another at the same time. They are enemies and yet share even greater enemies.
America and its Western allies want to overthrow the Syrian Shia government and the best way to do this would be with support from Sunni military groups. i.e. the Syrian Rebels: the Free Syrian Army, ISIS and Al-Nusra. This is because Sunnis and Shias do not like each other they haven’t done so since Islam was formed 1400 years ago. Syria is fighting these Islamist terror groups backed by Russia and Iran. America is also fighting these Islamist terror groups but America supports the Syrian rebels. This means that America is in Syria fighting ISIS, but America also wants ISIS to win because ISIS are also fighting the Syrian government, and America wants the Syrian government to lose.
How confused are you right now!
America wants to imperialise Syria to construct a pipeline which would thus allow America to sell gas to Europe and take away the gas market from Russia. This would essentially cripple Russia’s economy because 80% of Europe’s gas is currently provided by Russia. Syria wants its friend Russia to construct a different pipeline through its territory which would thus maintain European dependence on Russian gas.
Where does religion come into this pipeline conflict?
Well, Sunni Islamist groups are bad, Shia governments not as much so, but Syria’s Shia government needs to be defeated in order to enhance America’s economic power, and the best way for Syria’s Shia government to be defeated is with the support of Sunni militants.
But America and its Western allies still need to be seen opposing Sunni militants of course.
As for the chemical attacks in Syria last week, I think it could be every possibility that Assad DID NOT use chemical weapons and nerve agents on his own people, the very same people whom 89% of voted Assad into power.
I think the chemical weapons would have been more likely to have been used by Syrian rebels, after all, the Syrian rebels are partly made up of ISIS and ISIS have used the banned chemical weapon ‘mustard gas’ before when attacking Kurdish fighters.
This means that blaming Assad for the use of chemical weapons could simply be a set up by America and its friend/enemy ISIS in order to make Assad and his government look bad, and justify military action against his ‘regime’.
I might come across as a conspiracy theorist (that’s because I am), but ask yourself, was it definitely Russia who shot down the Air Malaysia flight back in 2014 or could it have been a joint American-Ukrainian secret operation in order to make Russia look bad. The same goes for the nerve agents used on the Russian man and his daughter in Salisbury, Great Britain last month, and of course the previous chemical attacks in Syria that were assumed to have been carried out by the Assad ‘regime’.
The Syrian rebels have embraced Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the rebels are more likely to use chemical weapons. Investigations need to be made properly.
Why would Assad launch a chemical attack on civilians when the end of the war is nigh? ISIS have retreated and Al-Nusra have been defeated, and Donald Trump wants to withdraw American troops from Syria. Assad is winning so why would he decide now to gas his people?
There is also wonder if a chemical attack even happened at all? Locals have said that it didn’t, and in the video and photographs of the supposed chemical attack there is evidence that the scenarios in which ‘victims’ are being treated by medics are staged.
This video from “rebels’” held area in Syria is one of the reasons why you don’t rush into war based on YouTube videos pic.twitter.com/OB2aGXQP4y
All you need to know is that the Syrian war is a war on proposed pipelines. America needs to take control of Syrian territory, and in order to do this it has orchestrated a rebellion against Assad’s government along with its allies in Europe and the Middle-East. This rebellion has involved ISIS and Al-Nusra, the types of people who Western liberal democracies are supposed to oppose.
This essentially means that the reason half a million people have died in a war is because America wants to colonise Syria in order to construct a pipeline and sell gas to Europe. As for the chemical attacks, it will be unlikely to ever know for certain who used the chemical weapons, that’s if they were used at all, meaning that you can not assume it was Assad who used them just because that’s what Western media are telling you so.
The Football Lads Alliance started out as a response to the Islamic terror attacks which we saw in Manchester and London last year; a small number of like minded rival football fans angry at the limited response from the government and the political elite following those terror atrocities.
Since the movement started in the summer last year, the FLA has grown massively in numbers and two marches have already taken place in London, with a further march being planned in Birmingham next month. What I want to discuss in this article is the media’s perception of the FLA; the extent of how much the media has in fact covered the two previous marches, and what image of the FLA the press has tried to portray.
After the first march in which there were 10,000 people, nobody in the press bothered to cover the story. The only people who knew of the march were members of the FLA page on Facebook, which at a guess was maybe 50,000 people. The general population had no idea that 10,000 people marched through their capital city that day, never mind what they were marching for. The BBC didn’t cover the 10,000 FLA marchers, but that very same day the BBC had time to cover the story of a 1000 feminist protesters… in Germany!
After the second FLA march, the press started to take an interest, albeit mainly the minor media outlets who no one takes seriously anyway. The reports from the press suggested that the FLA were far-right racists, which in fact was just an attempt from the press to keep the liberal left and the politically correct at piece of mind. Despite not being part of the two previous FLA marches, I myself have been part of the FLA Facebook group right from the very start and I have seen the leader and founder of the FLA, John Meighan, post the same messages throughout; “no racism and no violence”.
The FLA is a movement that welcomes anyone from any background providing they are opposed to terrorism and extremism, something which has unfortunately become part and parcel of living in a city (I’m sure I’ve heard someone say that before???).
I thought it would be useful to ask John Meighan a few questions and note down the answers. I already knew what his answers to my questions were going to be before I had even asked them, but I asked him anyway because in my opinion, this is how a democratic free press should work. Talk to the primary source of the topic that will be covered in order to get the most valid report, whilst maintaining no bias with complete neutrality of opinion. This will thus allow readers to form their own fair opinion.
J Mitchell- What is the FLA and why did you start the movement?
J Meighan- The FLA is a street movement formed in response to the terror attacks in the UK. It was founded after the London Bridge Attack, but the real game changer was the Manchester terror attack where young children lost their lives
J Mitchell- What were you intending to achieve when you started the FLA movement?
J Meighan- We were initially planning a small march through London with like minded people, but this soon evolved into tens of thousands marching
J Mitchell- How do you feel about the very limited response from the media (the BBC in particular) and the political class?
J Meighan– This was unsurprising. In meetings and interviews with the BBC and other media outlets it is clear that they have a narrative. Football rivals peacefully marching through London together is just too much of a happy ending, which doesn’t cut any ice fitting with their agenda
J Mitchell– Of the media outlets who have responded, they have labelled the FLA fascist and racist. How do you feel about this?
J Meighan– It was inevitable because anything right of left is seen as racist. I feel annoyed, frustrated and angry because it’s simply not true. The truth is in the pudding. The truth is in the two marches. You will always get idiots who latch on to any movement and use it for their own agenda, but we have tried to actively manage that issue and will continue to do so as and when it is possible.
Lets have a look at John’s answer to question number 3 with regards to the fact that the media already had a narrative and that rival football fans marching peacefully is just too much of a happy ending. This is such a shame. The press had no interest after the FLA’s first march simply because it was peaceful and therefore successful. If things went sour and the rival football fans started kicking ten bells out of each other, the BBC would have been all over it!
After the second march the Independent newspaper decided to do a report, but not on the story of yet another successful march in which this time 30,000 rival football fans marched peacefully together; again with no one being arrested. The Independent chose to write about an incident in which the FLA marchers came across Stand up to Racism demonstrators, acting as an anti-Islamophobic counter-demonstration. Minor insults and derogatory chants were exchanged but nothing major. There certainly wasn’t any fighting; hence why no arrests were made. The FLA marchers were angry because they couldn’t understand why the Stand up to Racism counter-demonstrators were present. No one was being Islamophobic! Does being against Islamic extremism and terrorism count as Islamophobia? The question that the Independent should have been asking is “why were the counter-demonstrators even there at the scene?”
As you get to the lesser powerful media outlets the bull**** gets even worse. The Searchlight Magazine and the Socialist Worker for example both label the FLA as fascist racists, the Searchlight Magazine claiming that in the FLA’s second march, “London witnessed the largest demonstration of the far-right in since before WW2”, and the Socialist Worker saying that “racism was at the heart of the FLA”. Come on Searchlight Magazine! Far-right? Really? Why does anything that is not left-wing liberal suffice the racist label these days? Even Wikipedia tells lies claiming that FLA founder John Meighan has previously served a prison sentence for football violence. Not true!
What I think is that the press were hoping that the rival football fans would clash during the FLA’s first march, and then there would have been an interesting story to report, even more interesting than feminist campaigners in Germany! Unfortunately for the press the march was peaceful. The press then couldn’t ignore two marches, therefore the Independent et al toed the lines of a sensitive society where everyone and anyone gets offended by everything and anything. They knew that there was nothing wrong with the two marches or the FLA movement as a whole, but the safest option for the press and the media is for them to demonise the Football Lads Alliance in order to keep the sensitive and easily offended people happy.
But I must ask what about keeping these rival football fans happy and listening to what their concerns are? Is it a social class issue? Prime Ministers come and go but every time each one of them promises to give more voice to the working people. Well now’s the chance! The FLA are working-class people, they are the biggest working-class movement since the miners’ strikes. Middle-aged pompous Guardian readers who latch on to a “Save Our NHS” demonstration, whilst feeling secure from any potential danger with their Bupa insurance DO NOT count as working-class. The FLA is the perfect example of who politician’s ‘supposedly’ want to hear from more often. But nah, still the political class aren’t interested in what the working people have got to say, as per usual.
There has been one or two politicians who have spoke out criticising the FLA, the usual suspects of course, i.e. Diane Abbott. Where was Diane Abbotts criticism of Sadiq Khan allowing the Al Quds march in London; Muslims with links to Hezbollah canting “death to Jews”?
There’s obviously the risk of the FLA attracting far-right white supremacists and Nazi’s, but surely there is with any up and coming new movement. John Meighan has already said that the FLA group is politically neutral it is neither left or right, and he told me specifically that the FLA are aware that “idiots will latch on to the movement and use it for their own agenda, and the FLA will actively try to manage that issue”. You can’t ask for more than that.
The Football Lads Alliance are a group of working-class people trying to get their voices heard in a society dominated by the media and the political class. With the press already trying to belittle the FLA movement, they are practically claiming that any criticism of terrorism and Islamic extremism is in essence Islamophobic and racist. If you can’t criticise terrorism what can you criticise?
“Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can”– ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Islamism is a concept that; despite occasionally being said throughout history, has come to surface in recent years since 9/11 in an effort to differentiate the religion of Islam with the Muslim extremists who act in the name of Islam.
Basically it is because of the politically correct west. To lesson the risk of generalising all 1.8billion Muslims with the same status, people thought it would be a good idea to divide Muslims into Muslims and Islamists, and Islam into Islam and Islamism.
This way, Islam can be kept just as a religion, and Islamism is the political aspect of Islam.
Islamism doesn’t have to be violent. It could involve terrorism and the killing of infidels, or just simply a Muslim preacher trying to influence his religion to non-believers on a street corner.
Islamism is just simply an effort in recent years to distinguish the regular and genuine practice of Islam, from the actual enforcement of Islam onto dibelievers.
The only problem is that politics has been a big part of Islam ever since its existence, so there’s no need to try and politicise it now with Islamism, Islam is already political. Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political ideology that primarily distinguishes between Muslims and the kafir (non-believers). Muslims go to paradise if they live without sin, the kafir are destined for hell no matter how they live their life.
Let me tell you a little story about Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad was born and lived in Mecca and it was there he lived as a spiritual leader, influencing Islam attempting to gain followers to his religion. In the space of 13 years he gained very little followers, most scholars appear to agree on a number of 150. Therefore Muhammad moved to Medina after 13 years along with his 150 followers and he chose to politicise Islam himself, changing his role as a spiritual leader into a political leader/warrior using jihad. From this the growth of Islam exploded. By the time Muhammad died, just about everyone in Arabia was a Muslim. Politics and Islamic jihad were maintained after Muhammad’s death, seen with the caliph Abu Bakr declaring war on those that left Islam (apostates), leaving thousands dead.
Before Muhammad moved to Medina from Mecca he saw the people of the book (Jews and Christians) as allies. Once he moved to Medina, Muhammad demanded political loyalty from the Jews in return for religious and cultural autonomy. The Jews rejected this leading to Muhammad holding a more radical view of the Jews from then on. This is probably why Jewish people ended up either enslaved or dead during Muhammad’s political reign.
Therefore as you can see, there is no need to politicise Islam now with ‘Islamism’ because Islam itself has been political ever since Muhammad moved to Medina 1395 years ago. Prior to Medina there was seen to be moderate Islam. In Medina Islam involved politics, power and war. So just keep them two words in your head, power and war.
Oh by the way, after Medina, Muhammad went back to conquest Mecca, ultimately resulting in himself becoming the King of Arabia. Power. War.
Now lets get back to the present day and talk about some problems with the concept of ‘Islamism’.
For a start, Islamism is not recognised as a concept by Muslims in the Islamic world. If you ever come across a jihad (I hope you don’t) ask him if he commits jihad in the name of Islam or in the name of Islamism: his reply to your question will be “what the f*** is Islamism?!”
Islamists call themselves Muslims, and guess what… Islamists and Muslims follow the same religion! A blood thirsty jihad and a liberal secular moderate are both Muslim. The fact is, if there was nothing wrong with Islam there’d be no need for the concept ‘Islamism’ to be thought of in the first place! What will we have in the future, moderate Islamism?
How come Islam is the only religion that gets itself an extended ‘ism’? You don’t hear of Catholicists terrorising with acts of Catholicism. When the IRA were planting bombs in Britain were they referred to as Irishists? Were they conducting acts of Irishism?
Islamism is a politically correct invention because people are now too scared to criticise Islam or Muslims. People don’t want to be labelled as racist or Islamophobic. (I don’t believe that ‘Islamophobic’ is a word, because a phobia is an irrational fear, and a fear/disliking of Islam as a political ideology is not irrational).
Political Islam means that non-believers can never get away from Islam, and the best example of this is Sharia Law, an Islamic legal system which is essentially a political ideology. See what I mean? Sharia Law is an Islamic legal system not an Islamist legal system! Sharia Law is an example of how politics is part of Islam…
THEREFORE ISLAM AND ISLAMISM ARE THE SAME THING!
‘Islamists’ such as Anjem Choudary believe that political-economic systems of government that are not Islamic; western democracy being the prime example, oppress Muslims; meaning that Sharia Law is the only answer. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it is by far the best political system of government the world has got. However Islamists such as Anjem Choudary pick out the worst aspects of democracy and use it to justify Sharia Law. Sharia Law in any society would of course mean no freedom and no liberty, and it would involve the enforcement of Islam on the kafir. That is what you call ‘Islamism’, or what I prefer to call Islam.
Moderate Muslims such as Dr Tofik Ahmed accept that politics is a major part of Islam, hence why Islam needs reforming. Dr Tofik Ahmed says that “the politics needs to be taken out of Islam and certain verses of the Qur’an need to be reinterpreted”. However this means that the more ‘Islamist’ Muslims such as Anjem Choudary accuse Dr Tofik Ahmed of not being a real Muslim. Radicals and Moderates often argue in contemporary society as to what makes a Muslim a real Muslim. Nothing new seen as Muslims have been fighting amongst themselves for nearly 1400 years since the death of prophet Muhammad. It is no surprise then that the 1.8billion Muslims living today can’t seem to get together and form a stable government.
Unfortunately, the fact is Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion. I’m not saying that all Muslims are political, there are good and bad Muslims just as there is good and bad Christians and good and bad atheists. Islamism is a concept invented by the PC in order to give more justification for labelling any critic of ‘Muslims’ and ‘Islam’ a racist. Can Islamism even exist when there is difficulty defining exactly what it is amongst the Muslim community?. To solve the world’s problems caused by Islam you need to reform the religion itself; take out the politics whilst maintaining the religious and spiritual practices. In order to do this the Qur’an will need to be drastically reinterpreted. The world’s problems caused by Islam cannot be solved with an ‘ism’.
*Influence for this post taken from the work of Dr Bill Warner and Charlie Klendijan at Law Secular Society
Of course it is generally agreed that the world would be a more peaceful and better place if it wasn’t for religion, but there’s no denying that the religion most associated with violence, terrorism and extremism is Islam.
All religions and their scriptures need reforming to coincide with present day moderation, and believers of any religion can be defined as radical or moderate based on the extent of their acceptance of their religion’s reformation; from the original holy text. So first, lets outline examples of the basic differences between radical and moderate Muslims:
Radical Muslims hate non-believers of Islam (infidels), moderate Muslims think that the hatred of non-believers is unacceptable
Radical Muslims want the caliphate to return, moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims support Sharia Law, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims accept the renewal and reform of Islam that comes with Westernisation, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims support violence in the name of jihad, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims accept criticism of Islam because of the freedom of speech, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims think that apostasy should result in punishment, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims tend to believe in democracy, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims tend to have a hatred of Jewish people, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims believe in gender equality, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe that the Qu’ran should come before a state’s constitution, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims believe in religious equality, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe it is necessary for women to wear Islamic face wear such as the burka or the hijab, moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe that adultery should be punishable by death, but only women (where’s the feminist outrage!?), moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe that women should not be allowed to choose their own partners, moderate Muslims think women are allowed to have relationships before marriage
Radical Muslims agree with Female Genital Mutilation, moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims reject universal human rights, even the most basic human rights that are commonplace in the west, e.g. homosexuality. Moderate Muslims welcome universal human rights
Finally, what I feel is the easiest way to differentiate radical Muslims and moderate Muslims:
Radical Muslims are more loyal to Islam, moderate Muslims are more loyal to the state
Obviously there is an irrational stereotype that every individual Muslim themselves are violent extremists who commit terror, which is naive and completely untrue. This is why here in the liberated West, it is genuine common knowledge that radical Muslims are only a tiny minority and Islam is followed by a vast majority of moderate and peaceful Muslims.
However, are radical Muslims really that much of a minority? Statistics gathered by Pure Research, 2011 suggest not. Lets start by looking at the proportion of Muslims in some middle-eastern, Asian and African countries who support strict Sharia Law:
50% of Indonesian Muslims (the largest Muslim population in the world) support strict Sharia Law
76% of Pakistani Muslims support strict Sharia Law
65% of Egyptian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
82% of Bangladeshi Muslims support strict Sharia Law
71% of Nigerian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
83% of Iranian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
75% of Moroccan Muslims support strict Sharia Law
99% of Afghan Muslims support strict Sharia Law
89% of Palestinian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
You don’t have to be a terrorist to be a radical Muslim, supporting strict Sharia Law is enough. Countries that do incorporate Sharia Law only do so to an extent with a lot of the legislation reformed and moderated, but strict Sharia Law would involve punishments such as the amputation of someones hands for theft, or the death penalty to anyone who criticises Prophet Muhammad or Allah.
Aside from Sharia Law, there are other statistics gathered from the same study that show perhaps that radical Muslims are NOT a minority in certain Muslim countries:
78% of Iraqi Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified
60% of Jordanian Muslims support the terrorist group Hamas
70% of Indonesian Muslims blame America and/or Israel for 9/11
70% of Egyptian Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden
25% of Bangladeshi Muslims think that suicide bombing can be justified
67% of Bangladeshi Muslims also think that the honour killings of women can be justified
32% of Turkish Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified (that’s coming from what is thought to be the most moderate Muslim country)
76% of Afghan Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified
78% of Palestinian Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden
89% of Palestinian Muslims also support terrorist attacks on Israel
And then there’s in the West!
52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal
78% of British Muslims also think that people who draw Prophet Muhammad in a cartoon should be prosecuted
35% of French Muslims think that suicide bombing can be justified
19% of American Muslims are favourable to Al Qaeda
13% of American Muslims also think violence towards civilians can be justified
The alarming statistics above collected by Pure Research (don’t ask me how the research was carried out I can’t find the original results, I’ve gained these results from a second source; Ben Shapiro) only include 942 million Muslims from a possible 1.6 billion. This is because the study wasn’t carried out in many Muslim countries, for example Yemen, Libya, or of course; Saudi Arabia.
I say “of course” when it comes to Saudi Arabia because SA is the home country of ‘Wahhabism’; an ultra-conservative Islamic doctrine that influences the original readings of Islam, i.e. making it the most radical interpretation of Islam. This is why Wahhabism is known as ‘Pure Islam’; no deviation from Sharia Law whatsoever. If you want to find yourself a radical Muslim, the best place to look is Saudi Arabia. SA is known as ‘the breeding ground for terrorism’, with ISIS, Boko Haram and Al Qaeda gaining influence from Wahhabism.
The sad thing is that Britain is an ally of Saudi Arabia. They trade arms with one another and Saudi Arabia funds some of the British mosques; meaning that the evils of Wahhabism is taught to British children here in our own country.
Outside of Saudi Arabia, Muslims are divided primarily between Sunni and Shia Muslims, both having been fighting each other for 1400 years. Sunnis are thought to be the most radical of the two, which is a shame seen as 90% of the world’s Muslim population are Sunnis. Shias are less associated with radicalism, extremism or terrorism, but unfortunately both Wahhabis and Sunnis oppose the Shia interpretation of Islam. The Shia branch of Islam isn’t completely free of radicalism however. There’s Hezbollah and Shia militias funded by Iran.
In conclusion, the alarming fact is that the world’s radical Muslim population are not the minority that they are assumed to be here in Britain and the rest of the liberated West. I have Muslim friends and I am fairly sure that they are all moderate Muslims without radical opinions. Come to think of it however, I wouldn’t say they are ‘proper Muslims’. The Muslim women I know don’t wear Islamic face wear, and one chap I have in mind likes to have a night out on the booze with a bacon sandwich the next morning.
Moderate Muslims accept a reformed Islam that differs from the original writing of the Qu’ran, radical Muslims do not. So next time there’s a terrorist attack and you hear liberals say: “they’re not real Muslims they’ve read the Qu’ran wrong, Islam is the religion of peace”, remember the terrorists have actually correctly read the Qu’ran word for word, its moderate Muslims who read the Qu’ran wrong.
Firstly let’s get one thing straight, I am not racist, I am not xenophobic, I am not a white supremacist, I am not a white nationalist, I am not a neo-Nazi, I am not a fascist, I am not a chauvinist, and I am not any of the other possible insulting labels that liberals will try and give me after they read this blog post.
Lets start by looking at some statistics:
At the latest consensus (which was 6 years ago so the figures will now be more exaggerated), the number of immigrants coming to Great Britain was seen to rise by 3 million in the first decade of this century, and there are now more than 3 million households in this country who’s first language spoken is a foreign language. As for in London, only 40% of Londoners now define themselves as white British and white Brits are a minority in 22 of the 33 boroughs (just to be clear I know the race of Brits is irrelevant because anyone can be a native Brit non-immigrant no matter what skin colour they have. I’m just trying to put into perspective how the ‘stereotypical’ British person, i.e. white, is now becoming a minority). At the end of last year net migration was a staggering 335,000! Far from unsustainable. Of course that means the Bliar and Brown Labour government can’t be solely blamed for the unsustainable number of people currently living on this tiny island, the Conservatives as well.
Over the past few years there has been far too much immigration and it is now getting out of hand. Britain is losing its culture and its identity and because of multiculturalism we Brits are now struggling to define who we are. What are British values? Once it was tea, scones, Wimbledon, the Queen, Parliament, our treasured NHS, the justice system, schools, universities, the Beatles, David Beckham. Now all that’s been ‘watered down’ and Britain now stands for political correctness instead. A society where freedom of speech is banned because of the fear that minorities will be offended. To be clear, I personally I think different cultures are fantastic! Travel the world and experience different cultures just like I did: New Zealand, Malaysia, Poland, Stevenage; but don’t bring different cultures here to replace our culture, because that’s what multiculturalism is. Even Angela Merkal, the main face behind the EU’s freedom of movement policy and also with the welcoming of a million Syrian refugees, has admitted that multiculturalism has been a failure.
As for the economy, well you always hear the same argument from liberals all the time that “immigration is good for the economy, immigrants pay more in taxes than they take in benefits”, when in fact immigration does not have much of an impact on the economy. The previous Labour government claimed that immigration contributed £6billion to the economy, but they were not taking GDP per head into account. A study by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee found that when GDP per head was taken into account, “there was no evidence that immigration provided any significant economic benefit to the existing UK population”. Immigrants themselves are the main economic beneficiaries. As for the argument that immigrants proportionately pay more tax, the same HLEAC report concluded that “the fiscal impact (of immigration) is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”.
Britain is full and too overcrowded! Again, you get the same argument from liberals; “2/3rds of Britain is countryside there is plenty of room!” What, are immigrants expected to live in fields? There isn’t enough infrastructure, not enough places in schools, not enough hospital beds, not enough social housing. I’ve only been driving a car for two years and I now already see the differences that the extra 750,000 people in Britain since I first started driving my car, have made to extra traffic. Being in a traffic jam in London at 2am is not cool. Of course that means that there is an argument that immigration would be more beneficiary to Britain if more money was contributed to public spending, but that ain’t going to happen with this Conservative government. There is also the fact that 93% of immigrants who move to Britain move to England, making England the 2nd most densely populated nation within the EU.
As for the NHS, there is no denying that the NHS has benefited from immigration massively, but the NHS didn’t have to depend on immigrants. The easy option was chosen, and instead what should have been done was to train more British people as medical staff. 35% of NHS doctors are foreign qualified, compared to 5% in Italy, 10.5% in Germany and 15% in France.
Now before all the lefties pound me for what I’ve so far wrote in this article, lets bring up the obvious fact that the Establishment and the corporate elite benefit massively from immigration because capitalists make extra profit by exploiting immigrant workers with a cheaper wage. But when left-wing media outlets such as Huff Post and the Guardian bang on about the increasing rich-poor divide in Britain, they always fail to highlight that one of the main reasons for this is mass immigration.
Finally i’m going to tell you the main reason I want our borders closed, something personal to me and I assume that none of you liberals will be able to argue against this. After a brain injury left me severely disabled, I now have a speech impediment meaning I can’t talk clearly or loudly. At home in Barnsley, I will confidently talk to any stranger certain that they will be fluent in English and are likely to understand what i’m saying. However with me travelling a lot, spending a lot of time in London, i’m finding it harder to talk to people in general, because more people in general now have a foreign language as their first language. With them communication with me is near enough impossible. There’s nothing more frustrating for me than to try and give directions to a Turkish Uber driver.
I understand that there has been massive benefits to this country from immigration and I understand that there has been times where Great Britain has needed immigrants. I am quarter Polish, my Grandad moved to this country from Poland at a time when immigration was needed after WW2 to help rebuild this country. That was a war in which he fought himself alongside the British allies, and I am proud to say I am quarter Polish and a close descendant of an immigrant. But immigration now needs to stop! I am not saying that immigration needs to stop forever, I am not saying “never let anyone in”. But before we open our borders again, more schools need to be built, more hospitals need to be built, more social housing needs to be constructed and more infrastructure needs to be put in place. Then hopefully by that time, we’ll have fully departed from the bureaucratic EU, and will once again be able to control our own sovereign borders with a sustainable immigration policy.