Google Democracy or Saudi Theocracy? You Choose

 

 

We’ve already asked the question as to why the BBC continues to give so much unquestioning airtime and respect to Baroness Warsi, someone who is not a voice of moderation but is a conservative, that is, fundamentalist, Muslim who propagandises on behalf of that ideology every chance she gets….her latest book proclaiming that Muslims are not the ‘enemy within’ and making huge excuses and demands for what she calls tolerance..but is in reality a demand to allow Muslims to live under theocratic rule without interference.

We’ve also asked why Google et al are under so much critical scrutiny for producing ‘fake news’ getting Trump elelcted, Brexit passed and giving a platform to extremists when the BBC is allowed to campaign to stop Trump and Brexit and promote Jihadism without a word of criticism.

It is a curious blindspot that there is so much concern about ‘democracy’ being undermined by Social Media content when Saudi Arabia and fellow Gulf states channel millions, if not billions, into Western countries in order to further the advance and dominance of the Islamic ideology, funding mosques, madrassas, universities and other educational establishments as well as Islamic cultural and outreach institutes and centres that operate to spread the Faith…not to mention political collaboration as the ‘elite’ ingratiate themselves with the Saudi regime.

The fact that we have some 3 million Muslims now living in Britain has meant that voices criticial of Islam are muted in order not to cause ‘offence’ by exposing the reality of the religious ideology unlike in the past where politicians and commentators could speak freely of those hard truths.

The last terror attack in London is a case in point where senior police officers preferred to talk of ‘international terrorism’ rather than Islamic terrorism, some in the Media preferred to not mention Islam in relation to this and politicians fed us a narrative that this was nothing to do with Islam…as is the case with all such terrorism in their eyes.

We have a Tory candidate, Andy Street, who proclaims that poverty is to blame for terrorism and of course that the problem is coming from only a tiny minority in the Muslim community.  Then we have Michael Gove, concerned about ‘Islamism’ but is he concerned about ‘Islam’?  Seems not.

According to Gove Islamism perverts a great faith to inspire violence.  He says that ‘The ideology which drives Islamist extremists may seem alien to many of us in the rational, sceptical, secular West and that it is a sort of madness.  A belief system that governs everything…is to most of us inhumane and irrational.  But unless we understand the nature of this belief system then we will always be one step behind in the battle against terrorist attacks’

So…all good so far…Gove seems to understand that the ideology drives violence.  But wait….he continues…‘It cannot be stressed often enough that the great religion of Islam is a very different belief system from the ideology of Islamism’.

No, no it is not.  Islamism is part and parcel of Islam…..What he calls ‘Islamism’ is merely the drive to implement ‘Islam’ fully as intended by ‘Allah’…the Koran being revealed because the Christians and Jews had not followed their scriptures exactly and had also split their religion up into different sects….not allowed by Islam…hence Shia and Ahmadis are not considered ‘Muslim’.

Islamism is not an ideology, it is a process to implement an ideology.  Islam is political.

There are no extremist Muslims, Islam is ‘extreme’ as an ideology…extremism is part and parcel of Islam…ie it is the ‘normality’ not the extreme, hence a ‘Muslim’ is not an ‘extremist’ just a Muslim….there are people who follow Islam in the proper manner and there are moderates and cultural Muslims who don’t actually live as full ‘Muslims’.  I think it was Iqbal Sacranie, once head of the MCB, who stated that ‘there is no extreme Islam, no moderate Islam, there is just Islam.’  I’m guessing he would know if anyone would.

As Gove himself says, if you don’t understand the beliefs you won’t deal with what is happening…but then again our politicians don’t want to deal with what is happening…the Islamisation of Europe…to do so would mean making Islam illegal…and that’s not going to happen…the only genuine opposition to the Islamist surge will come from the ground up as the ‘elite’ collaborate out of cowardice and the belief that they will come out on top whatever the regime is.

In the Spectator we have an article that says ‘Theocracy should scare us more than terror’…but our politicians and media, the BBC/Guardian, don’t dare say that….but ‘Theocracy’ is rapidly coming our way.  You may not become ‘Muslim’ but you’ll certainly be subject to its laws as we are forced to ‘respect’ and kowtow to Muslim culture, laws and sensibilities in order not to cause ‘offence’.  Islam is political, it is cultural, it is about conquest and colonisation, it has little to do with spirituality in reality……Islam governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life……

Islam’s founder was a warlord.

The real issue is not violence or terrorism but theocracy. Islamist violence stems from anger that Islam’s theocratic potential is being thwarted.

The difficult truth is that Islam is a religion that, from its inception, idealises a very close unity of religion and politics, and that when this ideal is thwarted some of its adherents become enraged. I don’t know whether it can move away from its theocratic impulse, but I am pretty sure that we ought to speak honestly about it.

You may remember the ‘Lancaster Plan’ which someone in the comments brought our attention to…now the write up in the New English Review is somewhat colourful but you cannot deny the basic truth of what is being said about the way we are forced to suppress opinion about Islam in public, otherwise shouted down as racist or Islamophobic, and how politicians would rather surrender to the Islamists than confront them…oh not the violent ones…that’s easy, but the activists who conduct a cultural jihad, that use the law, the media, politics, and infiltrates society to every level in order to further their aims….as encouraged to do so by Mehdi Hasan….and indeed the BBC’s own Mishal Husain  told us when she began on the Today show that she hoped to use the position to promote the image of Islam.  The Trojan Horse plot is a classic example of an attempt to Islamise the UK by the backdoor, non-violently….carried out to a blueprint produced by the most representative Muslim body in the UK…the MCB.

Most commentators like to address the most dangerous issues in terms of violent extremism but that is not the real problem, it’s a deliberate device by the likes of Warsi to divert attention from the very serious concerns about Islam itself…what are those violent extremists intending to force upon us with that violence?  The same thing non-violent conservative Muslims wish to do….make the UK Islamic.  The issue is indeed a choice between theocracy and democracy.

What does the supposed Lancaster Plan consist of?……

The consensus was that we were, and would remain for the foreseeable future, at risk and that the Islamic violence in western societies would gradually increase as the years went by.

Then, quietly and with good manners – almost apologetically, one of our fellow guests disagreed with us. He stated quite plainly that the situation in Britain would not be allowed to get out of hand as had happened, in his humble opinion, on the continent. What was more, he asserted, the British government had a Plan to keep the Muslim situation in the U.K. under control, and had had such a Plan in place since it was drawn up under the Blair Labour government back in 2005, after the bombings in London, when it had been known as the Lancaster Plan.

The Lancaster Plan contained several different provisions that could be brought into play to defuse the threat of Islamic violence in the U.K.

The first stage was, so he said, the careful use of legislation to make any criticism of Islam, or Muslims, almost impossible. 

The careful positioning by many NGOs, and left-wing thinkers, of criticism of Islam and Muslims as racist had not been entirely co-incidental either, so he averred, but had been initiated and encouraged by government officials in furtherance of the first stage of the Lancaster Plan.

The first stage of the Plan had been a success in that the Muslim population of the U.K. had taken full advantage of it to assert their uniqueness and to demand the respect that they felt was their due, the man said calmly.

Stage two, he informed us, had also been put into effect, but it was only an experiment in devolving power to small areas of the U.K. – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Ulster) – whilst still keeping the U.K. together as a type of politically whole unit. This was so that structures could be put in place to continuously manage that type of change. This would enable, he told us, the granting of some degree of autonomy, in an orderly and managed fashion, to various Muslim enclaves around the country when this became necessary. Precedents for devolution would have been established and the change could therefore be managed easily and without too much fuss from the general population. The whole Plan was really about managing the changes that the Muslims in the U.K. will keep demanding.

He went on to say that further stages of the Lancaster Plan envisaged granting these enclaves the right to implement their own laws, such as sharia law, granting Muslims the right to travel between these enclaves but remain subject only to the laws within them while so doing and expanding the enclaves as the need arose. The final stages of the Plan, he informed us casually, foresaw the need to alter the laws outwith the enclaves as they became bigger and more powerful in the national parliament – repealing such things as the laws that decriminalised homosexuality, the laws that granted equal rights to women and the laws that made all religions equal. The death penalty would have to be re-introduced and it would become necessary to assert in law the primacy of Islam and the superior position of Muslims in the U.K, but by the time that that would have to happen Muslims would constitute at least thirty percent, and more probably fifty percent, of the population. If the current government plans for the increased immigration of Muslims stayed on course then there should be no trouble in reaching that percentage in about fifteen years time, he told us. That would also ensure Britain having good links to the rest of the Islamic world through family and clan ties. The Plan was quite plain about the necessity of confusing and misdirecting the current population about immigration by distracting it with constant talk about refugees and overseas aid and other such trivia that could be magnified out of all proportion.

Such changes would occur incrementally and the formulators of the Plan believed that each small change would pass almost unchallenged for each as it happened would affect only a tiny number of people, or an easily despised minority such as gay people.

 

It may be fanciful that it is an actual worked through plan, but it could quite easily be the ‘plan’ by default as politicians stand back and don’t stop this process…which is well underway….the BBC having two Muslim heads of religious programming  being just one sign of the ‘elites’ fawning stupidity as was the promotion of Warsi to Chair of the Tory Party in a pathetic attempt to curry favour and show how diverse they were.  Just remember Labour opened the borders in order to ethnically cleanse Britain, to ‘brown’ it, and to rub the Right’s nose in diversity…don’t underestimate the stupidity, naivety and sheer self-destructive impulse that drives the Left in its hatred of ‘Britain’ and indeed the ‘West’…..Merkel is another case in point….political correctness, and fear of the Media, drove her policy and not common sense, national interest and security.