Wednesday, 20 March 2019

Let's Start the Muslim Debate....

Okay, first I have to say this unfortunately because there are a fuckton (scientific unit) of people that will instantly be triggered and take offence.

I'm not referring to ALL Muslims, don't forget I have family that are Muslim. I am quite happy to be around Muslims. I don't see them as the enemy like the far-right would.

There's an enlightened side of the Muslim culture that quite happily co-exists with Western culture. The Persian side, the pre-revolution Iranian side, the pre-PLO and Hamas Lebanese side.

A side of Muslim culture that does not crave world domination, that does not crave political control, that does not demand subjugation or extermination of other religions.

BUT (a lather large but)…..

We have to talk about the Muslims that Do want world Muslim domination and actively work towards it.

We have to talk about the Muslims that do crave political control.

We have to talk about the Muslims that put Sharia law above the law of the land they are living in.

We have to talk about the Muslims that define a female child differently than Western Law.

We have to talk about the Muslims that practice Female Genital Mutilation.

We have to talk about the Muslims that hold to the "Muslim Nation" concept.

We have to talk about the Muslims that put the Muslim Nation above the country they live in.

We have to talk about the Muslims that see it as their religious duty to rape Western children.

We have to talk about the Muslims that refuse to integrate into Western Society.

We have to talk about the Muslims that live in the west but describe it as immoral.

We have to talk about the Muslims that are against the LGBTQ+ community.

We have to talk about the Muslims that are against feminism.

We have to talk about the Muslims that have fought against our soldiers and against our national interest.

We have to talk about the Muslims that refuse to tell the authorities if they know of  another Muslim doing something illegal (like raping a child).

We have to talk about the Muslims without and within the UK that finance the subversion of Western Culture.

We have to talk about the Muslim Imams that come into the West and preach hate against us and our culture.

We have to talk about how our culture copes with a society that stands apart and refuses to integrate.

We have to talk about what happens when Muslims gain political control.

We have to talk about what happens when Muslims gain financial control.

And that lot is just from the top of my head, with a pretty dodgy memory. It's a pretty long list of items.

I'm sure there will be more. But the salient point is there are things we need to be talking about and now.

If we are to beat the "otherness" of Muslims and work with them and integrate them into Western society, we need to discuss these issues and other parts of Muslim culture.

For instance the dishonesty when talking to certain Muslims. The Muslims that do not discuss openly their agenda, or those who will say one thing in public and to non-Muslims and then something completely different to their Muslim brothers.

We have to come to understand that Muslims will use our own laws against us when it suits, right up until the point they can take control and make the laws to suit themselves to the exclusion of others.

This is not islamophobia, but an honest discussion on the issues surrounding the integration of Muslims into the West.

I hold back from saying Western Society, because there may never be full integration and inclusion. Again, that's something to debate: how do we cope with a society that refuses to integrate?

But the debate has to be above all honest, frank, without agendas and in public.

If things are left in the dark and are not brought into the spotlight of debate, then the risk of violence from both sides is real and is high. Until there is an honest and open debate and a consensus formed, we cannot more forward. The current stalemate on both sides has to be resolved.

Monday, 18 March 2019

Christchurch Shooting: Totally Avoidable.

I've been advocating for some years on this blog about talking about the issues surrounding Islam, immigration and the lack of integration into Western society. I have predicted for years that without inclusive dialogue, niches will open allowing extremists to exist on both sides of the debate.

The lack of debate and an agreed consensus has brought about the widening of the division between left and Right, Christian and Muslim. The wider the divide gets, the more insular each side becomes.

To the point that eventually the "other" side becomes dehumanised, at which point they become fair game for violence. Not that I'm advocating violence, just that the current climate makes it more likely now and further into the future, unless we get a grip on this and the debate is opened up and everyone has a say.

The real people to blame are those that close down debate. The Far left and the devout Muslims.

The leftists that are so inclusive they fail to understand what Islamic ideology is political as well as religious, the leftist feminists that fail to understand that Islam would crush feminism, the gay people that support Islam, that fail to understand gay people are being hung in the name of Islam.

The devout Muslims that refuse to adapt: The ones that refuse to accept that Britain is their home. The ones that stand apart. The ones that class Western Society as evil. The ones that reject inclusivity. The ones that fail to reject the more extreme teachings of the Koran. The ones that drum up dissent when a gay teacher tries to provide an inclusive curriculum. The ones that condemn apostates. The ones that would fight against British soldiers in foreign countries. The ones that put the Muslim world community ahead of their local community, those that lie in wait to do us harm. The ones that vote en-masse as they are told by Imams.

Our government, that kowtows to Gulf State money and shuts down dissent, Our government that actively harasses anyone that speaks out against Islam, Our government that allows Saudi preachers to enter the country uncontested to preach hate against our society.

The debate has to be had and it has to be had freely and publicly. Islam cannot be protected as it is, allowed to spread hate as it is, allowed to continue uncontested as it is. The Left have to stop shutting down debate. The government has to stop shutting down debate and harassing those that try and throw light on the issue.

The beheading of Lee Rigby should have been enough to start the debate. The rape gangs of Rotherham should have started the debate. The rape gangs of Leeds should have started the debate. The rape gangs of Oxford should have started the debate. The rape gangs of Telford should have started the debate. The rape gangs of Bristol should have started the debate.

The murders in Christchurch Should. Start. The. Debate.

The debate has to be had, or the alternative is violence. Up until now, the violence has been from the Muslim side. More and more you'll see it from the opposite side as well, the disenfranchised that feel not listened to, that see violence from the other side and see their view effectively winning. Where will the government act? Where will it stop? Until we are all consumed in a civil war?

Will it stop when Muslims are attacked? When the left start to be attacked? Will it stop when the government is attacked?

It certainly hasn't  started when ordinary citizens (of all faiths and ethnicities) have been attacked by Muslims.

Debate has to start on how we address the issues of a society within that stands apart.

It may be that the elites in government think the Muslims are useful to provide the votes and muscle to implement policy. They are wrong. Like bringing up an orphan Tiger, once it gets big enough it will see you as prey and turn on you.

Thursday, 14 March 2019

So..... Brexit, What Happens Now?

In an entirely predictable state of affairs, Brexit has been thrown into chaos; in the house of commons at least.

Everyone else in the country, leavers and remainers alike have no such turmoil in their brain. The country voted to leave the EU so lets get on with it.

The turmoil in the HoC has been caused by MPs first voting against Theresa may's "deal" one day, and then voting against a no-deal exit t6he very next day.

So the only option they appear to want is to stay in the EU. In direct conflict with the people. Never before have our elected representatives gone against such a clear mandate before.

Even then, the House of Lords has been the voice of reason and steered the HoC back towards the will of the people.

However, the House of Lords is also stacked in favour of remaining, so we cannot rely on the Lords to nudge the government in the direction of democracy.

So, we are at an impasse.

The vote to reject no-deal is not binding thankfully, but it should be noted by the constituents of Leave voting areas if their MPs voted effectively to stay in the EU that they voted against the will of their constituents.

Wednesday, 13 March 2019

Wibbly Wobbly Webbly

No not the Spider toy that my kids played with, but the world wide web.

It's 30 Years old.

Funnily enough I remember those days, as I was involved in Network support back then. I oversaw the transition from point-to-point multiplexed lines to a mainframe down South to an open standards network involving this new internet thing and a standard called x.25.

I got into network support due to my involvement in packet radio back then. I passed my Ham radio exam back in 1982 and around the end of the eighties started dabbling in what was called packet radio: the same x.25 packet standard that enabled the internet was being used to transmit data over the air. It was a revelation in communications at the time.

Anyway, I was working at ICL and the network manager suddenly decided he didn't want to work there any more, so decided to not come into work. Ever. After a few weeks of him refusing to turn up at work, they decided that maybe he wasn't coming into work and needed someone else to make sure the data kept flowing. I was approached by our then I.T. manager who asked the pertinent question "you know a bit about networks and stuff don't you?". To which I replied, yes I do.

I was instantly converted into a network support person on the spot. The manager continued: "Oh, and by the way, there's a project in the pipeline to convert all the factory's point-to-point links to open standards using the internet. I need costings and a project plan...."

So it came to pass that I got my first dip into not only pukka network support, but also project management. In at the deep end, as usual.

It sorely needed the upgrade though, as the ceiling was bowing under the weight of several hundred direct terminal link cables feeding into a single rack :-)

In the end though, I had successfully converted the factory to a full ethernet network, with several hundred terminals replaced and the ceiling repaired. All in time and under budget. I got an award for that.

Anyway, not long after converting the whole factory to t' ethernet and t' internet, along comes the world wide web. Rather than only big companies having internet access with servers on their premises,  the www allowed even small companies to have an internet presence, thanks to offsite servers and HTML, which made pages accessible to ordinary people.  Now information was provided by a click on a natural language link, rather than remembering some obscure I.P. address provided by a supplier.

Online ability snowballed down until even us ordinary mortals could have our slice of the web.

Thanks Sir Tim, you brought a severe amount of information into the homes of the masses.

Happy Birthday WWW.

Bleeding Britain Dry.

Just a short one today.

It's a well-known fact that a large number of immigrants to the UK send money to families back home in Pakistan or Poland or wherever. In some cases we have the mad situation where benefits are paid to people for children that are not in the UK.

The first point I have some sympathy with. Altruism isn't a bad thing and spreading any wealth you accrue in the UK to families back home can't hurt, as long as it's not abused and the sums are relatively small.

The benefits thing I can't get my head around. Why on earth the UK benefits agency thinks it's okay to pay for a child that isn't domiciled in the UK is a concept I can't grasp. The child is outside the UK, so it's for the country the child resides in to support it. If the country doesn't have a system of support, then it's the child's parents that made the decision to leave the kid behind. Whoever is looking after the child then gets to pay for them. The parents left in the full knowledge that the kid wouldn't be supported by the home country. Either take a cut in your benefits and send a portion back to whoever is looking after the kid, or get a job and support the kid directly.

But the big syphon of funds from the UK is of course big business.

Whether it's the eBays, Amazons and Paypals with head offices domiciled outside the UK and therefore eligible to pay corporation tax not here where it's earned, or the foreign-owned companies (of which there are many) paying their proper share of tax, but sending profits outside the UK.

It will be interesting post-brexit how the government treats these issues. Will the benefits agency stop paying for kids outside the UK? Will they stop paying benefits to non-working immigrants full stop? After all there will be no EU rules enforcing payment. The HMRC is quick enough to squeeze the poor guy, the hapless contractor falling foul of the heinous IR35 rules. But will they turn the screws on the big corporations once we are an independent nation once again?

Will the money stop haemorrhaging out of the UK for once?

Monday, 4 March 2019

Anti-Democracy: The Pressure Fabricated Outside Democracy

We all (hopefully) know what a Non-Governmental Organisation or NGO is.

If you don't they are generally general charities, health charities, media outlets or political organisations that "advise" government on areas of special interest. They may be funded entirely by charitable donations, they may be funded by private donations, they may be funded by the UK government, or they may have a mix of any or all of the above.

If you do a Google search for Non-Governmental organisations, you'll get a list of the most lovely and benign organisations going. But you'll not get a list of the most influential NGOs. Not the ones that can click their fingers and watch the government ask how high would you like us to jump.

For instance Oxfam. They work outside the government and take donations from private individuals, but government may fund them in times of crisis to provide aid. They are a foreign company and so are outside the remit of the charities commission. They do however have an arm that campaigns and lobbies/advises government on aid and poverty.

The thing to note is that Oxfam has moved beyond charitable works and providing aid and now invests time and money in political lobbying.

Not just Oxfam, but the RSPCA, RSPB, The Qulilliam Foundation, HopeNot Hate, Common Purpose, etc.

There is a huge strata putting pressure on the government on behalf of special interests, mainly in direct conflict with the democratic will of the people. Just look at Brexit.

Hope Not Hate snapped their fingers and Tommy Robinson  was almost instantly removed from Facebook and Instagram. That's quite a lot of influence. Not that they really needed much to Ban Tommy. I just think HNH just provided the excuse.

This is typical of many NGOs, where the political aspect is now a large part of the organisation. In fact there are many NGOs where their remit is "education" and "political lobbying" and "advising government".

I put those attributions in inverted commas, because those labels are not strictly true. There are many NGOs that seem to have an impressive amount of leverage on government and MPs and Civil Servants in Ministerial departments pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they say. They also have an inordinate amount of influence amongst private companies too.

There are many NGOs that are politically active. They produce reports that governments and private companies act upon. It's amazing though how the government and these NGOs work in collusion. For instance an NGO may produce a report that then they use to put pressure onto government and then the government produces some for of legislation to address the "problem" the NGO has highlighted. Totally outside the democratic process: the people didn't ask for the legislation, didn't want it, but it gets pushed through anyway. It is never a part of any manifesto that is voted on, nor do MPs go back to their constituency parties to get a consensus. Just as with Tommy Robinson's banning, the NGOs provide the impetus and the excuse for the actions of government. Action that the public have not asked for.

It's all one jolly circular, anti-democratic club: require the legislation, get an NGO to provide a report providing positive bias, get the media to create positive pressure and then the government enacts legislation. Without ever seeing a manifesto or a democratic vote. Cosy.

However, this influence is outside of the democratic process. Decisions are being made by government based on information and political pressure not from the Demos: the people, but instead organisations outside the democratic sphere. Just as with the EU we have no way of voting these influencers into or out of power.

They are just there, funded by god knows who. The George Soros funded Open Society Foundation (quite an innocuous title) is one such NGO (amongst other George Soros funded NGOs) that has a quite incredible amount of influence due to it's incredible amount of funding. It has influence in government, with newspapers, TV and other media, news outlets and other NGOs. Not just in the UK but across the West.
What they say is taken as gospel and regurgitated almost word-for-word by the media. Any report they publish directly influences rather than advises government.

This outside pressure on government is what is putting the anti-democratic pressure on government.

It's what has changed government policy from Brexit meaning leaving the EU AND the Customs Union AND the Single Market that we were promised before the referendum, to Brexit means a deal, the backstop, and staying in the Customs Union at all costs.

The people didn't ask for a deal. They didn't ask for Brexit to be thwarted by a backstop. They voted for the thing we were promised before the referendum: OUT of the EU, OUT of the Customs Union and OUT of the Single market.

This pressure outside of democracy has to be pushed back. It's the beginning of Fascism. We cannot elect these "influencers" in or out of office. Once a government has been elected, these influencers have 5 years to ply their trade.

Currently that trade is shutting down free speech, shutting down the public's ability to inform other members of the public about the affects of the undue influence these organisations have on our lives.

The pressure and the collusion between Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube amongst private media companies and the BBC, Sky and other media outlets the deplatform, un-person, smear and lie, all at the behest of undemocratic Non-Governmental pressure groups has to be resisted on all sides of the political spectrum, before we ALL lose our democratic voices.

This is not a left/right thing, even though the left has been co-opted to do the dirty work of the Fascists.

This is a democracy thing, it's a free speech thing, IT'S A FREEDOM THING!

I believe in the honesty of to Demos, the people, the population. They make more honest and rational decisions than any politician or political activist group.

The Brexit referendum proved the point: that the people wanted out of the globalist anti-democratic EU. They public at large have a great sense of fair play and honesty and they saw the EU as anti-democratic and dishonest.

The public are fast understanding the anti-democratic pressure that is influencing government against their best interests. The public are calling "it" the Elite.

Hopefully they will wake up and realise that the status quo in government has to change in order to effect change. People need to stop voting for the same old political parties that listen intently to the anti-democratic Elitist message. Instead we need to start voting for something new, something untainted by the Elite.

The list of organisations founded or funded by George Soros is staggering, especially when you see how many times they pop up in the media to be quoted, or to front a spokesperson, or have produced a report highlighted by the media. Those few organisations are in the forefront of the anti-democratic process.

Here's the list thanks to Wikipedia:

Founded or helped to found

Wednesday, 27 February 2019

Hope Not Hate.

Interesting developments around Tommy Robinson.

His own documentary regarding the Panorama investigation of him raises interesting questions around the Collusion between the Media and the NGO Hope not Hate.

The fact that a BBC correspondent was bragging about talking to Facebook days before Tommy's removal from Facebook and Instagram, shows an amazing amount of collusion between the BBC, Hope not Hate and media platforms.

Hours prior to Tommy's removal from Facebook it was made public. With so much warning that he was able to put up a video announcing his removal, before it was actually removed.

There is an inference that the Panorama operation was linked to the Facebook removal. For instance the Panorama episode smearing Tommy would most likely have aired by now, giving Facebook enough evidence to remove him.  With the removal happening a week or so after the on-air date, which be now.

Or looking at it another way, after Tommy's successful sting operation and the shredding of Panorama's legitimacy regarding their "investigation" of him, a BBC contributor had meetings with Facebook to produce a spiteful retaliation by getting him removed from social media.

The whole saga raises a number of questions, which should really be raised in Parliament.

For instance, why is a supposedly impartial public-funded national broadcaster colluding with Hope Not Hate (HNH) over the Panorama episode?

Even if you are impartial and say that HNH was just facilitating contact between people who had worked with Tommy and the Panorama team, why weren't Panorama investigating these people and contacting them independently in order to remove any and all accusations of bias?

When it comes out that HNH were alleged to be blackmailing some of those "contributors" that they were feeding to the BBC, it looks pretty shitty. Add to that the steering of contributors to say certain things against Tommy, with the allegation that they wanted a fabricated sexual conduct allegation alongside all the others, it stinks to high heaven.

I've commented before I've had dealings with the media before and their sensationalist attitude. One story involving the MOD and a serving soldier was only pulled at the behest of the highest ranks in the MOD. The second story, involving a dominatrix I knew was published and absolutely eviscerated her life. Not that her private life was any concern of the media. But the fact she worked with children by day and was a dominatrix at night somehow made her a risk to children.

But by that standard, being a Muslim male makes you statistically more of a risk regarding the sexual exploitation under-age girls, given the higher percentage of Muslim males of a certain age systematically raping teenage girls in towns across the UK compared to the number of 20-something white female dominatrixes that have abused kids. How many Muslim male teachers do you know that have been "exposed"?

The HNH/Panorama/Facebook collusion is absolutely a free-speech issue. When organisations that are not accountable to the people are removing certain ideas and specific conversations from social media, it smacks of Fascism.

Either we can have open, unbiased and unmolested debate about certain things, or we can't. If we can't, that's censorship. When only one side of the debate gets a hearing, that's propaganda. When that censorship spreads across private platforms, public broadcasters and printed media, that's fascism.