“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.
“I meet people in the street who don’t like me, and they don’t know why they don’t like me” – Tommy Robinson.
I can see why people do not like Tommy Robinson.
Follow the media’s coverage of Tommy Robinson, particularly the press from left-wing platforms, and you’ll understand why. It’s because he is racist, a fascist, a bigot, a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist.
Of course you should understand from the previous articles I have wrote on this blog that the press is genuinely full of s**t, lies, lies, more lies, exploiting the minds of the politically uneducated in order to spread their own opinion.
Tommy Robinson is not a racist, a fascist, a bigot, a neo-Nazi, or a white supremacist, he is simply a political activist against Islamic extremism (like the rest of us), and a harsh critique of Islam and the Qu’ran as a whole.
To put Robinson’s role as an activist into the fewest words possible, he first created and led the EDL from 2009-2013. He created the EDL as a reaction to a Muslim protest against British soldiers marching through his home town of Luton. Robinson said that the Muslims in this protest held signs saying “Death to British Soldiers” and were seen spitting in the soldier’s faces as they marched through Luton in front of their wives and kids. He was angered by the protection these Muslim protesters received from the police. Robinson left the EDL because he didn’t like the association that the EDL had with fascism and racism, and he didn’t like the fact that the EDL was attracting racists and neo-Nazis, something which he had always tried to prevent. After the EDL Robinson worked with Quilliam; a counter-extremist government funded think tank who basically paid Robinson in order to take credit for him leaving the EDL. An inevitable spat arose between Robinson and Quilliam and he is now seen working with Rebel Media and Pegida.
The most evidential argument to disassociate Tommy Robinson from Nazism is his support for the Jewish community within Luton and Britain as a whole, and the fact that Robinson defines himself as a Zionist.
Robinson is a supporter of the sovereign nation-state of Israel, describing it as a “perfect homeland for Jewish people”. Ask yourself this, what is the one religious/ethnic group most associated with being hated by fascists and Nazis? Jewish people of course! So would Tommy Robinson really wear a badge on his suit with the writing “I am a Zionist” if he was a neo-Nazi? That’s why him and Nick Griffin have previously had spats. Griffin of course is a ‘hater’ of Jewish people, an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi leader of the British National Party who calls Robinson a “traitor”.
This brings up the BNP, and yes, Tommy Robinson did join the BNP when he was younger and somewhat naive. But he soon withdrew his BNP membership after realising how racist the politically party actually were. He didn’t initially realise that Nick Griffin used to be a part of the National Front, and he didn’t initially realise that black people weren’t allowed to join the BNP. “I joined, I saw what it was about, it was not for me”, which is why Griffin calls Robinson a traitor.
Unlike a white supremacist, Tommy Robinson has had many positive interactions with people of ethnic and religious minority besides Jewish people; black people, Asian people, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims. Robinson most noticeably has found it easy to befriend Sikhs and visa-versa, due to his admiration of the fact that Sikhs in general are courageous. He visited a Sikh temple in Manchester after the terrorist attack earlier in the year to stand in unity with Sikhs who held a candlelit vigil for the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack. Robinson said that Sikhs had always been “wrongly identified as problematic”, and he wanted to educate people because “Sikhs have been fighting Islamic extremism ever since their existence”.
The press have always created a stigma against Tommy Robinson portraying him as a racist purely because of his previous leadership of the EDL (most notably by the Guardian); the EDL being a protest movement also portrayed as racist by the press (most notably by the Guardian).
Recently through Rebel Media, Robinson has set up Trollwatch; videos that see him challenge the people who have wrongfully labelled him a racist through the press or social media, to try and get them to explain their bull***t. Not once in any of the Trollwatch videos are any of the people Robinson challenges able to explain why they called him a racist, a fascist or a white supremacist. Below is a link to an example of Tommy Robinson challenging Tim Fenton, asking the journalist to explain why he called Robinson a racist in the Guardian, with Tim Fenton seen to be hiding away like a coward and unable to answer Robinson’s questions:
The most noticeable slandering of Tommy Robinson; portraying him as a white supremacist, was written in an article by Julia Ebner, a Quilliam researcher writing for the Guardian (there was no need to tell you which newspaper, by now you could have easily worked that out yourselves). Ebner didn’t directly call Tommy a white supremacist, her argument was that she “didn’t specifically call Robinson a white supremacist she wrote that Robinson attracted people from all kinds of far-right extremist groups”. Here is an excerpt from the article below where Tommy Robinson’s name was mentioned:
I am now going to write that paragraph out where Robinson’s name is mentioned below word for word, except for the small change of 2 of them 51 words:
“That the far right has moved from the fringe into the mainstream demonstrates the massive support that the white supremacist movements have attracted from digital natives. Their online followership often exceeds that of mainstream political parties: with over 200,000 followers, Diane Abbott’s twitter account has almost the same number of followers as Theresa May’s.”
Now you’re thinking that’s funny or that’s stupid or both because Diane Abbott is obviously not a white supremacist. But hang on a minute, I didn’t call Diane Abbott a white supremacist, just like Julia Ebner didn’t call Tommy Robinson a white supremacist.
With the press you get lies and a stigma when it comes to Tommy Robinson, and it is the same with social media, allowing liberals and even celebrities to jump on the ‘racist Tommy Robinson’ bandwagon (type in Tommy Robinson V Lily Allen on Google. It was quite amusing to see Lily Allen lose a debate on Twitter to Tommy Robinson and thus therefore throw the racist card at him, threaten him with legal action and block him on twitter). One thing I have noticed is that the people in general who criticise Robinson on Twitter, appear to come from a privileged middle-class background which makes them see only a tiny impact from immigration or Islam. They could never understand Robinson’s working-class background in a town as multicultural as Luton. Here’s an example of another Trollwatch video from Rebel Media below:
It should be stated (although it shouldn’t really only the naive would assume…) that Tommy Robinson is not against all Muslims or any average Muslim he may happen to come across, after all, he has always came across many Muslims because he’s lived alongside them all his life. “I’m not against all 1 billion Muslims because I think Muslims themselves are victims of Islam, so I’m not against all Muslims”. He is against Violent Muslims who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam. Now you’re thinking, “yeah but aren’t we all against Islamic extremism?” Well yes of course! Meaning that Tommy Robinson ain’t that different to the rest of us!
“No one from the EDL would care about a Muslim living their life peacefully, doing Ramadan, if we didn’t see all the hate”.
This is why Tommy went on an 18 month ‘journey’ with Mohammed ‘Mo’ Ansar in an effort for the both of them to understand each others opposing opinions on Islam, filmed as a documentary titled “When Tommy met Mo” for the BBC.
Throughout this documentary both Tommy Robinson and Mo Ansar were seen to have respect for each other and make friends with one another. Mo was seen to invite Tommy into his mosque so that Robinson could have discussions with Muslim scholars (criticised by Nick Griffin BNP because Tommy politely took his shoes off in the mosque), and Tommy invited Mo to speak with fellow EDL members; the first ever Muslim to do as such. It didn’t end two well for the pair though however. The leader of Quilliam Maajid Nawaz interviewed Mo, and Mo was seen to be unable to show support for some of the basic human rights, human rights that are contradictory to certain verses written in the Qu’ran; chopping women’s hands off as punishment for theft. It was after this that Tommy Robinson joined Maajid Nawaz at Quilliam after leaving the EDL, and Mo Ansar was not allowed to attend the press conference where this was announced because Tommy didn’t want him taking credit for him leaving the EDL.
Tommy Robinson doesn’t hate Muslims that should be fairly obvious by now, he hates the religion they follow. The difference is is that when Tommy tried to speak out about the problems of Islamism in his hometown no one would listen. Mainstream politicians have always refused to engage with Robinson, setting the platform for the media to scrutinise his political activism and label him as a fascist. Islamism is a problem in Luton. There are 25 mosques in Luton, how many of them mosques promote the Saudi Arabian doctrine of Wahhabism I do not know, but you can understand why the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Tommy Robinson’s hometown is dangerous.
Therefore Robinson had, and still has, a right to speak out about the problem of Islamism he has done nothing wrong by doing that. Unfortunately he has always been hammered by the left and the press for doing so. He knows more about Islam than any other average Englishman, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he knew more about Islam than the average British Muslim. He often gets challenged and confronted by Muslims in the street and Robinson will then teach those Muslims aspects of their faith that they did not know themselves. This is because Tommy Robinson has read the Qu’ran, he has read the biography of prophet Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq and he does know the ins and outs of Islam. This is what Robinson’s political activism is based on, a teaching of the Qu’ran and the prophet Muhammad, or more precisely; a teaching of everything that is wrong with the Qu’ran and everything that is wrong with the prophet Muhammad. But yes if any religious text, including the bible, is interpreted word for word, then there would always be more hate fuelled because all religious texts are backwards and have no place in contemporary society. However, Wahhabism is a literal interpretation of the Qu’ran being taught in British mosques to British children as young as 7. There are no British children in christian churches as young as 7, being taught to commit genocide against neighbouring people (1 Samuel 15:3).
One example of the knowledge Tommy Robinson has regarding Islam, and perhaps why you should trust him more than the media, is seen with Didsbury mosque in Manchester and the related terrorist attacks in May this year.
In the image above you can see a picture of a spokesman representing Didsbury mosque which is the mosque in which the Manchester suicide bomber attended. I remember seeing the press conference on Sky news in which the Didsbury mosque spokesperson above spoke, with him condemning the terrorist attack and him putting division between the mosque and the attacker. He made it clear that the mosque did not promote hatred or Islamic terrorism, and he made it clear that the attacker did not have his terrorist actions influenced on him with his attendance at Didsbury mosque. At the time watching the press conference I thought to myself “oh well that’s good then at least the mosque ain’t to blame for the attack”.
Fast forward two months, whilst doing research on Tommy Robinson in preparation for this article I learnt the truth about Didsbury mosque. I learned about the clerics that have previously spoken and taught there and the potential hatred preached that could have influenced the Manchester suicide bomber into his actions. Here’s a list of the Islamists who have spoken at Didsbury mosque and some of the Muslims who are associated with Didsbury mosque, also known as the Manchester Islamic centre:
1) Abdur Raheem Green- a British Muslim convert who stresses the fact that men are superior to women “simply because it says so in the Qu’ran”. He is chairman of the iERA, an Islamic hate group who have promoted anti-Semitism and called for homosexuals and female adulterers to be stoned to death. He also has links to the Portsmouth Jihadis.
2) Muhammad Ibn Adam- a cleric who justified the Charlie Hebdo attacks, saying “it was the right thing to do”. He says that Muslims should not make friends with non-Muslims, and if a Muslim was to bump into a non-Muslim on the pavement they should make that non-Muslim cross over the road. Adam said that cheating wives should be stoned to death, unless they are pregnant where they should be stoned to death after the baby is born. He also said that women should not leave their homes unnecessarily (“WHERE ARE ALL THE FEMINISTS ON THESE ISSUES!?”- Tommy Robinson).
3) Abu Qatada- probably the most well know Islamist jihad to have lived in Britain. He said that “the wives and children of those who leave Islam should be killed”. A court statement said that Qatada was “providing advice that gave religious legitimacy to those who wish to further the aims of Islamic extremism and to engage in terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings”.
4) Abdullah Hakim Quick- a Canadian Imam who said that “in Islam, gays should be executed. Homosexuality goes with Zionism”.
5) Abu Eesa Niamatullah- This cleric, who happens to live in Manchester, says that anyone who insults the prophet Muhammad should be given the death penalty. Also, one for the feminists to pick up on (but I bet they won’t), Niamatullah also said that women should not be in the workplace whatsoever, they should stay home and play housewife instead.
6) Ramadan Abedi- This man is the father of the Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi. Ramadan Abedi fought for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a group which had links with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and were designated by America as a foreign terrorist organisation in 2004.
7) Farzi Haffar- You may or may not recognise this man above from a previous image, but yes it is the spokesperson who was asked to talk on behalf of Didsbury mosque at the press conference after the Manchester terrorist attack. Quite bizarre they asked him to do the speech really since he has been previously caught out on social media being offensive to Jewish people, calling all Israeli Jews Nazis! Suppose he was the best of a bad bunch asked to talk at the press conference out of all the possible representatives of Didsbury Mosque.
Now to the main topic of this article which is not a criticism of Didsbury mosque or Muslim Jihadis or even Islam, but the highlighting of Tommy Robinson consistently being denied the freedom of speech during his time as a political activist. So now I’ll review how the police and the establishment have consistently stitched Robinson up and tried to stop him speaking his opinion, in our British police state.
The police have never wanted Tommy Robinson to speak because their jobs would be easier if possible tensions weren’t created between him, the EDL and Muslim communities. The old bill have consistently used tactics to try and stop Tommy Robinson speaking as a political activist; house raids, petty arrests, and the general attempt at scaring him and his family.
The police have had a pattern of arresting Robinson on a made up charge only so they could bail him on restrictions of where he could and couldn’t go and what he could and couldn’t say. These patterns of arrest were most noticeable at the timings of planned EDL marches, with charges being dropped after the EDL march had taken place. There are numerous examples of these petty arrests I could use. One is when the police pulled Robinson’s car over and arrested him on suspicion of driving a stolen vehicle, even though the vehicle that Tommy was driving had been bought on finance from Vauxhall. Another is when 15 coppers raided Tommy Robinson’s mum’s house with machine guns. This was because a man ‘fitting Tommy’s description’ had been seen causing £30’s worth of damage in a hotel!
The police also once arrested Tommy Robinson and his wife, interviewing his wife for 8 hours whilst she was 6 months pregnant, for tax evasion and money laundering. The bail conditions meant that Tommy’s assets were frozen and his businesses were closed, and him and his wife had to live on no more than £250 a week for four years otherwise they would have to serve 18 month prison sentences. Sounds bizarre doesn’t it? These restraining orders given in Britain; a land of freedom and opportunity? Of course the charges were in the end dropped.
After the arrests for tax evasion and money laundering, the police were seen to arrest Tommy and convict him for swearing at a football match. Of course the press picked up on this and made Robinson out to be a notorious football hooligan involved in a 150 man strong brawl.
Meanwhile, the police were forensically investigating Tommy Robinson and all his family for any possible crime of the previous ten years, petty crimes such as not paying VAT on items bought off Ebay…
By this time Robinson had had 6 different warnings from the government warning him that 6 different people wanted to kill him, and so him and family were offered new identities in a different countries. What for? Because he had originally spoke out criticising Islam!
In 2011 Tommy Robinson was jailed for 10 months for using a false passport (his friends). The reason he used a false passport was because a year earlier, Robinson travelled to America after the world’s 3rd biggest PR company set up a meeting with him and members of congress. Tommy described how that was the difference between Britain and America, Britain is drowned with excess political correctness and therefore the freedom of speech is denied, but in America those in power want to hear what people had to say. No one powerful in Britain cared about what Robinson ever had to say ever since he formed the EDL. However on his arrival that time, Tommy was arrested as soon as he landed at JFK airport because the British police had told America to do that. They didn’t want Tommy Robinson’s message to go mainstream in America. This is why Robinson went to the lengths he did a year later by using his friend’s passport.
Whilst Tommy Robinson was in prison the EDL on the outside had attracted racists and far-right neo-Nazis, something which Robinson had always tried to keep out. This led to his decision to leave the EDL but he didn’t stop campaigning. During his time campaigning, he noticed that the police seemed to offer Muslims and Muslim communities more protection than they did him and his family. The examples I will highlight are incidents in Birmingham, East London and at his parents house.
In Birmingham, Robinson read online that a Muslim was arrested for ‘bricking’ a police officer, but afterwards the he was let go because the local Imam plus 200 other Muslims stormed the police station demanding that the attacker be released. Tommy asked a police officer in Birmingham if this was true, and the PO said it was because they didn’t want any Muslim riots to start in Birmingham which would have spread nationwide. This effectively means that the Imam of that certain Birmingham community had more power than the local police.
In Tower Hamlets, Robinson and his cousin Kevin were arrested for ‘walking’ on Armed Forces Day. The police knew they would be walking through that densely Muslim populated area of London but had asked them not to because they were scared of the possible Muslim reaction. Tommy and his cousin did so anyway because they weren’t breaking any law. They were both attacked by what Tommy believed were undercover policemen, and they were arrested for defending themselves.
An incident occurred in Luton after a number of Muslims got knowledge of who Tommy Robinson’s family were and thus followed his family in a car back to their house, eventually standing in the front garden with weapons threatening the family. Robinson rushed to the house when he heard what was happening and was therefore.. arrested by the police! The Muslims in his family’s front garden with weapons were not even searched, never mind arrested.
Now, back to the point where the police had been forensically investigating Tommy and all his family looking for anything they could get an arrest for. I’m not going to go into all the details you’ll have to listen to Tommy Robinson’s speech on the ‘British Police State’. Basically the old bill couldn’t get anything on Tommy, however they did have possible charges on the rest of his family. So they did a deal with Tommy. His brother in law many years ago had filled in a mortgage form incorrectly, and Robinson had happened to lend that brother in law the money for the mortgage deposit. Therefore the police said to Tommy; “if you do an 18 month sentence for mortgage fraud, we’ll let all your family go free of charge”. Also, Tommy’s assets which had been frozen would again be allowed to be accessed.
Of course the press had a field day when they found out that Tommy Robinson had been sent down for fraud.
In prison for the 2nd time, Tommy was again being shown to be stitched up by the system with the governor of that prison failing to protect his safety. Before all this had happened with the supposed mortgage fraud, 6 Muslims were arrested and sent down for 30 years after being caught on their way to blow up an EDL march with explosives, an EDL march where Tommy was present. Tommy Robinson happened to be in the same prison this time as those 6 Muslims, and the governor had ordered Tommy to be put on to the same wing as them. If it wasn’t for a certain prison guard- ex-royal marine getting Tommy to safety before he was put on that wing, he would have been 100% guaranteed to have been killed by those 6 Muslims. There were still times during that prison sentence where Tommy Robinson was savagely beaten by Muslim inmates, simply because he was Tommy Robinson.
When Tommy got towards the end of his prison sentence, he was approached by two members of the Metropolitan Investigation Bureau; a secretive organisation at Scotland Yard, who wanted Robinson to work for them after he got out by being a grass. DESPITE TOMMY ROBINSON BEING AGAINST THE FAR-RIGHT, the MIB wanted Tommy to unite the far-right; Britain First, the National Front etc., and inform them of any potential far-right terrorist attack. When Tommy did get out, he found that his assets were still frozen and that the MIB were trying to blackmail him.
Shortly after Tommy Robinson got out of the nick, an incident occurred on Twitter when a neo-Nazi threatened to rape his mum (Robinson often got threats and abuse on social media from the far-right as well as from leftys and Muslims). Tommy decided to take this threat into his own hands seen as the old bill had done absolutely nothing about the 100’s of death threats him and his family had received over the years. When he went to meet this neo-Nazi at the designated time and place that had been arranged, the police were waiting for Tommy, and of course, this resulted in Tommy once again being arrested and back in prison.
Surely now you are all seeing a pattern with the police stitching Tommy Robinson up, keeping him locked up for as long as possible for absolutely ‘nothing crimes’, all so he can’t voice his democratic opinion.
Once inside, Tommy’s safety was again failed to be protected by the prison. On this occurrence, Robinson got a tip off from a fellow inmate that a Somalian inmate was planning on throwing boiling water on Tommy. Therefore, Tommy attacked this Somalian inmate first, for his own safety because he knew what was coming.
To cut a long story short, after Robinson got out of jail this time, he was again arrested because of the incident that occurred with the Somalian prisoner before. Tommy was set to get locked up again. The video evidence of Robinson attacking the Somalian inmate had been edited and parts deleted, so that you couldn’t see the inmate before tipping Tommy off letting him know that he was about to be attacked.
Luckily this time, one of Tommy’s Canadian friends got involved in the situation and got Tommy the best legal representation that money could buy. This time, the judge in court dismissed the case, and finally Tommy Robinson was able to break free from the cycle of getting locked up for doing naff all, being released, getting locked up again for doing naff all and again being released.
Now that this cycle was over with however, it didn’t stop the police’s tactics what had plagued Tommy Robinson and his family for years; harassing them, stalking them and criminalising every move they made.
Just last year Tommy was eating a meal with friends and family, including his three children, at a pub in Cambridge. For no reason at all, 12 police officers went to that pub and ordered Tommy and his family to leave, with the argument that the group he was sitting with having a meal were violent troublemakers and fighting would inevitably occur. After arguing with these 12 police officers for half hour, being backed up by the pub staff who were trying to explain to the officers that Robinson and his family had done nothing wrong, they were still made to leave. Once Tommy and his family had left the pub, the police officers unnecessarily followed them down the street in an intimidating manner. They were being absolute bullies. By this time, Tommy’s children were crying because they felt so scared by the following police officers, and even Tommy’s son tried to run away from the officers running into a busy road nearly getting himself killed.
Therefore after that day, every time Tommy Robinson’s children saw a police officer in the street or in the car or anywhere possible, they would get frightened and start crying. It took three police officers, two in uniform and one in a suit, to call at Tommy’s house and give him a football banning order (no reason for that banning order, the old bill just doing their regular job of enforcing unnecessary power and control over Tommy Robinson’s life). Its bad enough that his children were frightened of the police when they saw them in the street, but deliberately going to his home in order to scare his family!? Because that was just another one of the many tactics used by the police in order to try and silence Tommy Robinson. Make his children cry.
All this bullying, all this intimidating, all these lies from the police were for the sole purpose of stopping Tommy Robinson voicing his democratic opinion on Islam. Link to Tommy Robinson’s full ‘Police State’ speech below:
Throughout this article you can see that Tommy Robinson has never been properly listened to because of the power that the press and the police have had in denying his freedom of speech. A democracy is not just about having the right to vote because political activism is also one of the many elements of a healthy democracy. Therefore you could argue that judging by Tommy Robinson consistently being stopped from acting as a political activist, Great Britain is not democratic at all. It is wrong that a free press is able to have the power to belittle an individual’s genuine concerns in a society where working-class opinions aren’t taken seriously anyway, and it is wrong that the authorities are allowed to go to so much effort in bringing down a man and his family all for the name of political correctness.
Diane Abbott has a had a successful career enjoying the luxuries of a middle-class life that is found amongst the political elite. Despite her living with the joys of being a politician, she has based her career on being a voice for the ethnic minorities and a campaigner for race equality. With this has come many controversies, although the extent of the controversies is of course debatable. You may feel that Diane Abbott has been subject to unnecessary negative attention from a right-wing media, after all, the controversies I am about to highlight to you are mainly found in reports from media outlets such as the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. But whilst I highlight Abbott’s mishaps, ask yourself “would a white politician get away with doing that?”
The first naive moment of Abbott’s career I am going to highlight is when she generalised all white people as being the same. She posted a tweet on twitter stating that “white people love to play divide and rule”, with the hashtag “tactics as old as colonialism”. By this she is referring to modern day white people being the same as certain people in colonial times when empires, such as Great Britain, divided and subjected people to their rule depending on their race. This tweet is ludicrous and laughable from Diane Abbott seen as we now live in the 21st century, and people of all races living in Diane Abbott’s country enjoy the freedoms of a democracy. But with that tweet, Abbott generalised all 52 million white people living in Britain as being the same. Or maybe it was all 1.2 billion white people living in the world who love to play divide and rule, she didn’t make it quite clear. However imagine if it was a white politician generalising black people as of loving to play divide and rule, or as of loving to do a ‘more suited’ black stereotype (I’m not going to give an example because the PC will throw the racist card at me, I’m probably already pushing the limit).
Diane Abbott apologised for her tweet, but only because her leader Ed Miliband made her, she wasn’t going to! She got away with it not being forced to resign because she is a black politician generalising white people, not a white politician generalising black people.
The next point I’d like to highlight concerning Diane Abbott’s prejudice against white people is a Labour Party bill board seen in her constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington.
This Labour Party billboard was being used in the campaign for re-electing Diane Abbott. Two problems with this billboard. One, The 9 people pictured on the billboard including Diane Abbott are all black (so much for the promotion of diversity and multiculturalism by the Labour Party). Two, the quote on the billboard, “Labour will put BLACK AND ETHNIC FAMILIES FIRST to preserve a diverse nation”. The 9 only black people on the billboard goes completely against the diversity of British people that ethnic minorities, such as Diane Abbott, are known for stressing the importance of. Utter hypocrite! Of course Diane Abbott would argue that this such billboard is only being used in order to appeal to the electorate in Hackney, seen as 65% of people living in Hackney are black or of ethnic minority. However imagine if Gavin Felton, UKIP candidate for Barnsley, campaigned with a billboard picturing 9 white only people. It would get absolutely slaughtered by the left-wing media and liberals on social media. This despite 98% of people living in Barnsley being white. He’d only be appealing to the electorate.
The third highlight of Diane Abbott’s joke of a political career I would like to raise, again concerns her actions on twitter. I’d just like to say that after studying politics for 6 years, this was the first time a politician has actually made me angry with what he/she has said. This issue concerns the three recent terror attacks in Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park; two of those terror attacks carried out by Islamic extremists and one by an Islamophobic extremist. When Abbott took to twitter after the terror attacks by Islamic extremists in Manchester and London Bridge, she highlighted both terror attacks merely as ‘incidents’. However she outlined the attack by an Islamophobic extremist in Finsbury Pack as an actual ‘terrorist attack’. Why were the two attacks in Manchester and London Bridge only ‘incidents’ and the attack in Finsbury Park an actual ‘terrorist attack’ Diane Abbott? I’d like you to imagine a white politician of a right-wing political party, perhaps known for being against immigration, highlighting the attacks in Manchester and London Bridge as ‘terrorist attacks’ but the attack in Finsbury Park merely an ‘incident’. Again, he/she would get absolutely slaughtered by left-wing media and liberals on social media.
Of course I emailed Abbott a few days prior to writing this article to give her the chance to explain why she differentiated the three terrorist attacks. As you might have expected, she didn’t reply!
As you could imagine, the race related controversies seen from Diane Abbot would have been criticised more if it was the other way round with a white politician. Diane Abbott has benefited an incredible amount throughout her political career from the fact that she is black. Ironic that. I am not saying that she gets away with everything, she has often been seen apologising for her actions. But a white politician in her shoes would have been sent to the job centre a very long time ago. It is not only race related issues concerning Diane Abbott’s laughable career, but other mishaps seen from her, for example the hypocrisy seen when she criticised colleagues Tony Bliar and Harriet Harman for sending their kids to private schools. She later sent her own son to a private school. And of course the car crash interview just last month when Abbot got her figures all wrong, her excuse being that she’d been busy and stressed with 6 interviews already that morning (I’d expect her to successfully complete a 1000 interviews in a morning with the money that she earns). This of course led to her stepping down from the shadow cabinet a couple of days later.
I’m surprised a politician prone to controversy like her is able to hold a position as high as on the shadow cabinet in parliament (she’s now returned to the shadow cabinet). Anyone would think that she and her leader Jeremy Corbyn had a special connection like some sort of previous sexual history.
Oh hang on a minute…
To summarise, the ironic fact is the only reason Diane Abbott has not been forced to resign from her numerous positions in parliament is because she is a black female. Political correctness has gone mad, and the essential need to not offend and give priority to the social minorities is wrong, proven by the fact that Diane Abbott gets away with everything that she says and does.
The idea of the media is simple; an event happens in the world that we, the ordinary citizens, do not know about, and we thus rely on media outlets to inform us of that event so that we, the ordinary citizens, know what is going on. Simple.
The role that that the media plays in the global political system is somewhat extravagantly huge. And fair enough, whatever is going on in politics and current affairs is the most important and essential thing that people need to know about, more important than sport, celebrities, and people getting filmed having sex in the bushes at Royal Ascot. Therefore ideally, the media would use their power in politics to respectively report current political affairs with complete neutrality; tell us the truth about what’s going on, who’s saying what and who’s doing what, so that then we, the ordinary people, can then use the information given to form our own political opinions.
As if only the media could be like that. Instead newspapers and news channels use their political power to try their absolute best in influencing people’s political opinions to coincide with the opinions they have themselves. The Daily Mail will always criticise Jeremy Corbyn and ‘normally’ have praise for Theresa May, because they would prefer a Conservative government. The Guardian will always criticise Theresa May and ‘normally’ have praise for Jeremy Corbyn, because they would prefer a Labour government. It isn’t as bad with the televised news channels, but despite the BBC for example being supposedly independent from the government, they are hardly independent from the establishment and the political elite.
Media outlets simply ‘have it in’ for certain politicians, certain political parties and certain political activists. Lets look at a few examples starting with Donald Trump, who is perhaps at the biggest war with the media and is doing his best to highlight everything that is wrong with the media. Trump was not supposed to win the American election because it was not in the establishment’s interests. Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the election so that therefore the status quo of global politics could continue; American global dominance with imperialism and neo-colonisation, and a continuing tense rivalry with Russia. The fact that Trump won the election means that the media have done everything in their power to scrutinise every move Donald Trump makes. People on the left are jumping on this bandwagon, and Donald Trump’s numerous ‘controversies’ are now part of common knowledge.
Back home, we can see a similar pattern to that of ‘Donald Trump Vs the Media’ with Jeremy Corbyn and his battle against media scrutiny. The reason both Corbyn and Trump face a ‘bigger’ war against the media is because both of them position themselves far away from the centre on the political spectrum, albeit both on different edges of that spectrum. Therefore both do not fit in to the norm of neo-liberal political-economics that has dominated Western politics since the Reagan-Thatcher years.
The best example of ‘unfair media scrutiny’ against Jeremy Corbyn is the media’s labelling of him as a ‘terrorist sympathiser’. Corbyn is in fact quite the opposite seen as all of his political career has been about the campaign for peace. He has never supported the IRA he has just simply attempted at finding peaceful solutions through dialogue with certain IRA members. It’s the exact same with Hamas; Corbyn has just simply ‘never picked a side’. The media have twisted the story of Corbyn being a peace campaigner so that they could attempt to anger patriotic Brits. They have so far done that well. (I must state that I do not agree with Corbyn’s so called ‘terrorist sympathising’, I think there is always a side to pick, and the fact that he’s British and now wants to be the Prime Minister of Britain means there is surely only one side to pick).
Sticking with Corbyn, you could see extra scrutiny placed on him by the Media just last week when he did not bow for the Queen before her speech. I think it’s hardly a news worthy story someone not bowing for the queen. Big Deal. The right-wing press was all over that one, but when 10,000 football fans from London’s major rival football clubs march peacefully together against Islamic extremism just this weekend, it doesn’t get a second in the news! I think it was pathetic the way the media ‘pounded’ on Jeremy Corbyn for not bowing to the Queen, although again I must state that I did not agree with his ignorance and disrespect. We all know that Corbyn is a republican against the British monarch, but he does want to be the Prime Minister of her country. I’m not much of a loyalist myself. If I saw the Queen in Asda I doubt I’d bow to her, but if I wanted to govern her country I’d show some respect.
Finally when looking at political activists, the same pattern from the media can be seen as is seen in ‘the media Vs Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn’ battle, when activists are positioned away from the centre to the edges of the political spectrum. Russell Brand has for some time been calling for a socialist revolution against capitalism and the political establishment. The Media has never given him a chance to have his voice heard, scrutinising him at every opportunity, the Sun for example once ridiculously labelling Russell Brand a hypocrite because he has wealth and can afford to rent a London property. The same can be seen with Tommy Robinson who campaigns against Islam and the effect that the religion has on British society, and again the media never gives him a chance. Only today the Mirror showed an online Video of Robinson fighting at Royal Ascot labelling him a violent thug. After exploring the story further I found that Tommy Robinson retaliated after being physically harassed whilst trying to peacefully leave a potential confrontation and board a bus. Most people retaliate and get into fights now and again, especially when being physically harassed.
As you can see the media pretty much do what they want and they don’t do their job properly, that job being to inform people of news and current affairs without a biased opinion. A ‘free press’ sounds good, it emphasises the freedoms that we have in Western democratic societies. But I think a free press is dangerous and harmful to politics in general. I think the only way to solve this issue would be to have more regulation on the media, but Western governments are unlikely to enforce that with the fear of being seen as having similarities with Stalin like communism.
Since Donald Trump became President we have seen him backtrack and change his mind on numerous policies, most notably some of the policies he proposed in his presidential campaign; proposals which thus won Trump the American election.
One example is his changing stance on American intervention in Syria, going from the refusal to pursue American intervention abroad to the authorisation of an air strike on a Syrian airfield last month. His stance on NATO has also changed after he criticised the multi-state organisation last year for not doing enough to fight terrorism, being dependant on America’s financial input, and for being obsolete. He now thinks NATO “is a bulwark of international peace and security”. Also, after calling China “the world champions” when it comes to devaluing currency, he has now said that China have in fact not manipulated currency while he has been running. Finally, after the main highlight of Trump’s presidential campaign being the proposed building of a wall on the Mexican border… paid for by Mexico, he now says that “payment of the wall shall be arranged at a later date”.
So how does Donald Trump changing his mind about nearly everything remind me of Jeremy Corbyn? Because once Corbyn won the Labour leadership election, his political opinions, some of them 30 years long, funnily enough seemed to change once he held some form of power after being a long-time waste of space backbencher. Funny that.
Corbyn has been known to change his mind on things such as the Scottish Referendum and Article 50, but when I saw in the news the constant ‘backtracking’ of Donald Trump’s policies, it brought to my mind Jeremy Corbyn and his changing opinions on Britain’s membership of the EU. For numerous decades before he became leader of the Labour Party, Corbyn along with his Labour colleague and best friend, Tony Benn, were strongly against Britain’s membership of the EU obviously from a left-wing perspective; being against bureaucracy and free-market neo-liberal economics. However once Corbyn became the Labour leader he remarkably changed his stance on Britain’s EU membership and became a ‘remainer’ during the referendum campaign. Maybe he had a genuine change of heart. Or maybe he is an absolute coward who ignored his own 30 year long beliefs, in order to suck up to the rest of his ‘Blairite’ joke of a Labour Party.
Of course this article isn’t just a discussion of two random politicians and how they change their minds a lot. All politicians change their minds. I wanted to focus on Trump and Corbyn because I believe that their ‘backtracking’ of numerous policies reflects their positions on opposite edges of the left and right political spectrum.
I believe Trump and Corbyn retract lots of their ideas simply because the political elite are not ready to have them both in such high positions, albeit the President of the world’s most powerful country in a much higher position than the leader of Britain’s not so powerful Labour Party.
Western politics has ran on the basis of centre-right conservative neo-liberalism ever since the partnership of Ronald Reagan and ‘the witch’ (I live in a northern former coal mining town, you know who I mean by ‘the witch’), aiming to attract centrist voters following Anthony Downe’s ‘Median Voter Theorem’ with immense success, hence the reason why Tony Bliar completely changed what the Labour Party originally stood for.
However ‘ordinary people’ and ‘ordinary voters’ are now becoming increasingly attracted to populist politics, especially in Europe, seen with the rise of Marine Le Pen and the Syriza Party in Greece for example. If the political elite wasn’t so out of touch then maybe Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn could get on with the politics that they stand for, and not have to modify their initial proposals in order to suit the establishment’s interests.
There is also Western media to think about. An article wrote by myself wouldn’t be complete without a criticism of the press.
Like I have said, all politicians change their minds a lot, but the media put extra focus on to the fact that Trump and Corbyn do so because them two were always going to receive extra scrutiny from the press, purely for the fact that both stand well away from the centre on the political spectrum. It was not in the establishment’s interests for Trump and Corbyn to win their respective elections. Hillary Clinton was supposed to become American president in order to carry on her husband’s legacy with the Syrian pipeline (see previous article on jackmitchellpolitics.com). Corbyn wasn’t supposed to win the Labour leadership election because it didn’t coincide with Tony Bliar’s legacy of ‘New Labour’ (more precisely known as ‘blue labour’). The media’s hammering of Trump and Corbyn runs parallel to their focus on ‘everything wrong’ with Brexit. Just you watch Britain be better off in the long run after leaving the EU! But of course by that time the media will have found something else to focus on. Probably Ebola.
In the West there is pride in the fact that we have a free press.
Free press is a myth.
The press is run in the interests of the establishment, or the illuminati, depends how far you want to go with conspiracy theories.
However not everything that goes on with Trump and Corbyn can be blamed on the media.
The political elite are simply not ready for the two. Ordinary citizens are, but who’d have thought the political elite to be out of touch with ordinary people! People are wanting a different type of politics in Europe and America; populist politics with more radical governance from the left or the right, not the same old centre-right politics repeated through leader after leader. So just you watch the more opinionated figures like Trump and Corbyn to have political success in the near future, and maybe after time the establishment and the media will catch up.
Living in Britain, America or anywhere in the West, all you have to do is pick up a newspaper or watch the news on TV, and you will soon realise that Assad is an evil ‘Hitler like’ dictator who murders his own people, killing children with chemical weapons.
Does Trump need a better excuse to bomb Syria’s airfields?
To me it doesn’t make sense. Déjá vu springs to mind thinking back to the Iraqi invasion of 2003 and the supposed ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which of course was a lie! The real reason, probably oil, or maybe the fact that Iraq was a barrier for America’s energy resources to flowed steadily through the Middle-East (you’ll see why this really is Déjá vu in a minute).
But what have America got against Assad?
Well he’s an ally of Russia and Putin of course, and ideology is the reason for most of the world’s major conflicts. If you are an ally of Russia you are an enemy of America. He is a nationalist who refuses to ‘tag along’ with the American global dominance.
Lets take a look at the chemical attack in Syria last week which killed 87 people, carried out most definitely and 100% undeniably by Assad’s government (oops! Sorry must have been paying too much attention to Western media!). On March 30th, the US government finally acknowledged that the leader of Syria should be determined by the Syrian people, and not by American forced regime change (perhaps learning the lessons of Iraq 2003). Along with maintaining the Upper hand against the Syrian rebels (or ISIS, whatever you’d prefer to call them), this was fantastic news for Assad due to the fact that he is thought to be popular amongst Syrians (I know that sounds bizarre, but please, don’t pay too much attention to Western media. He won 89% of the vote at the last election!).
SO WHY WOULD HE GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE 5 DAYS LATER!?
To me personally, all the evidence suggests that the chemical attack last week, and the more fatal chemical attack in 2013, was carried out by the Syrian rebels and not by the Syrian government.
The western media who are of course run by the establishment, no matter how independent they claim to be, are quick to blame Assad because the West, in particular America, want regime change in Syria. Not only are Syria allies to Russia, but they are one of the very few countries who refuse to succumb to American hegemony and they maintain the importance of independence. They will not roll over and do what the Yanks tell them to do, despite their limited resources.
But what Do America want Assad to do? One word… pipeline!
America want to infiltrate Syrian territory to build a new pipeline from Qatar to Europe, through the countries of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey; all American allies except for Syria.
Syria of course are allies with Russia. Assad told Barack Obama he couldn’t use Syrian territory for his pipeline because that would go against Russian interests who currently provide 80% of Europe’s gas through already established pipelines. If America were to successfully build the new proposed pipeline through Syria they would be replacing Russia as the main provider for European energy sales, and the Russian economy would collapse overnight.
Did Obama say to Assad “ok then fair enough I understand”? Haha no way José! He and the rest of the West created the Syrian civil war in order to try and ‘de-throne’ Assad, wanting him replaced with a pro-American anti-Russian leader so that the proposed pipeline could be built. This meant that Obama and the rest of the West armed the Syrian rebels, also known as ISIS, meaning that ISIS were created by America in order to help influence America’s financial interest! Yeah of course America have ‘occasionally’ been bombing ISIS (can’t give the game away too easily can you?). But ain’t it funny how when America bomb ISIS they make sure that the Syrian infrastructure and the oil production facilities are bombed too? When Russia bomb ISIS they just simply ‘bomb ISIS’.
ISIS of course have their very own ‘oil empire’ making the majority of their finances from black market oil sales. But you’ve got to ask, who the hell would buy oil from ISIS? Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar that’s who! Those are the three countries people are pointing their fingers at, and those three countries happen to be strong allies with America.
Its not the first time America have undertaken operations of secrecy to help influence regime change in other countries, other countries whose leadership went against America’s hegemonic interests. Have a look at South America for example. Chilé prior to 1973 had a left-wing socialist government, allied with the Soviet Union. In 1973 a right-wing coup, supported by America, overthrew president Salvador Allandé and replaced him with General Pinochet. This American backed right-wing leadership then resulted in 3000 Chileans being killed or going missing, tens of thousands of prisoners being tortured and 200,000 Chileans going into Exile. Salvador Allandé later went on to mysteriously commit suicide after the coup, by that I mean he was probably killed by the CIA. Also in 2002, an attempted right-wing coup this time failed to overthrow the socialist leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Chavez was a man of the people, an inspiration to people in all of South America, and was known to despise America and the hegemonic imperialist activities that the US undertook. America deny being behind the failed coup attempting to overthrow Chavez, but they lets face it they most certainly were. Hugo Chavez died not so mysteriously of cancer, but still, he was probably killed by the CIA.
Back to Syria and ‘the gassing’ of its people, ask yourself this, who is more likely to carry out a chemical attack (on its own people!); the government of a nation-state (no matter how uncivilised that nation-state may be), or an anti-government rebel group of fighters, partly (or mostly) made up of terrorist organisations including ISIS and Al Qaeda?
I’ve said who I thought might be behind the chemical attacks last week, and I may be wrong! I’m not telling you what to believe, I’m just asking you to gather a balanced opinion before deciding on who was at fault, before taking the Western media’s word for it.
However, don’t you find it weird that people of anti-government/anti-Assad forces were there on the ground, ready to rapidly produce a HD video, with a script, ready to send out to media outlets at the time of the chemical attack???
To be honest not many people had heard of Syria before this civil war, but now it is the country set as the basis for a possible WW3. All Trump has to do is hit Syria with another missile, and this time Russia and Iran will fight back. Then that my friend, is it. Game over.
Oh and by the way, Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the election so that she could carry on her husband’s legacy (it was Bill who first proposed the building of a pipeline through Syria). So don’t be surprised if Russia did somehow manage to rig the American election.
All this terror and atrocities you are seeing in Syria right now are because America want to take away Russia’s energy sales and start providing Europe with gas themselves. The war, the dead children, the wiped out town and cities, are there because of America’s greed and their need to maintain power over the world.
This weekend we have seen the news that the European People’s Party, the European parliament’s biggest political grouping, has said that it would support a EU wide ban on women wearing Islamic face veils.
The idea of women not being allowed to wear a niqab or a burqa in the west and non-Islamic countries, now seems to be a popular thought amongst people in the west. With the EPP now stating it would support a ban, the proposed ban is shown to be no longer a ‘far-right’ policy proposed by ‘racists’ who could not be taken seriously.
The left of course do not agree with such a ban with the argument that “freedom and liberty is found within western nations”, and therefore women should have the right to wear whatever they want to wear in order to fulfil their religious obligations, especially within a land of freedom and equality.
However is seeing a woman in a Western country wearing an Islamic face veil, a sign of the freedom and equality found within the west? Or is it a sign of the complete opposite; the oppression of women and the patriarchy found within Islam.
I am not even going to try and pretend I know the extent of oppression that is put upon Muslim women. I could easily read articles in the Daily Mail and assume them to be 100% true, but the valid way to judge the extent of Islamic patriarchy would be to read Islamic texts themselves, of which I am unlikely to ever find motivation to do.
Although one must ask, why is it only Muslim women who have to cover their faces? Why not Muslim Men as well? Why are Muslim women not allowed to pray whilst they are on their period (I know that’s absolutely bizarre!)? Why did the Taliban ban education for Muslim women but not Muslim men (yes I know the vast majority of Muslims aren’t as radical as the Taliban but lets face it, the Taliban aren’t exactly Buddhists are they!? They still act under the name of Islam. They are still Muslims)? Why does the Qur’an permit Muslim men to have four wives but not vice-versa? Why are women in Islamic societies expected to stay at home and not participate in public life? Why are Muslim wives in Islamic societies expected to cook, clean and look after the children while their husbands work? Why are Muslim women not allowed to drive in certain Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia? Why were Muslim women only given the right to vote in Saudi Arabia as late as 2015? Why do Muslim women have to endure Female Genital Mutilation? Why are Muslim women (and men to be fair) forced to marry?
Western societies such as that of Britain are still patriarchal in the twenty first century with issues such as equal pay between men and women (after reading the last paragraph do you really think that is such an issue). Of course it is no issue to me if feminists carry on with their ‘warheads’ pointed at Western society; outraged at the pure and utter evil fact that builders like to ‘wolf whistle’ at pretty blonde women walking by wearing short skirts. But just have a minute and take a look at Islam. That is gender inequality at another level. If Muslim women are continuously covering their faces and not being allowed to show their beauty whilst in Western society, then that contradicts the freedom and equality that the West is proud to have.