A selection of Notes regarding Free Speech the Tommy Robinson Contempt of Court Verdict and the wider contexts of Geo-Politics and The Kakistocratic Ruling Elites who have infected all the Estates of Society, The Legislature, The Executive, The Judiciary, and the #FreePress .
with their venality, hubris, narcissism and greed.
I am setting out these notes now as I am not sure when I will get the time to place into context, first the Class-based prejudice I perceive in the treatment of Stephen Yaxley Lennon ( Tommy Robinson ) by the Legal Establishment, The Police , The Press and the Progressive Politically correct (SJW, right to be offended) what we used to call ( the One-Eyed, one-armed, Lesbians ), LGBTxyz squads’, maybe?.
Notes on the written Judgement here.
See comments here also for commentary via twitter on the sentencing hearing.
The Venality of the BBC and the Establishment propagandists of the Kakistocracy. #FreeTommy #FreeSpeech The Uk is now a Fascist Junta with no free speech and the corruption is complete.
“Do you find this happens all the time
Crucial point one day becomes a crime
And I’m not the kind that likes to tell you
Just what I want to do”
Hi Steven, the two cases are connected, it’s playing the man and not the ball, it really goes to this at its heart. https://t.co/MpyLKahbS3 #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy I am writing an article tying it all together #Chabloz #NaziPug #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeAssange pic.twitter.com/EfTloEOwgG
— RogerGLewis (@PMotels) July 12, 2019
erm, conflating 2 separate cases, the Cambridgeshire case was brought by SYL in an attempt to make money. it was a rubbish case, he was treated like any other AWAY SOCCER FAN. This case was brought by the judge in leeds, as this tosser tried to get 3 trials stopped !
— Steven Baker (@notacunningplan) July 11, 2019
Hi Steven, the two cases are connected, it's playing the man and not the ball, it really goes to this at its heart. https://t.co/MpyLKahbS3 #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy I am writing an article tying it all together #Chabloz #NaziPug #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeAssange pic.twitter.com/EfTloEOwgG
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) July 12, 2019
The strange story of Atlantica
The effort to unite Europe and the U.S. started in 1939, with the publication of a book by an influential journalist, Clarence Streit. This influential book was called “Union Now,” and had a galvanizing effect on the anti-fascist youth of the time, a sort of a cross between Thomas Friedman’s “The World Is Flat” and Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.” Streit served in World War I in an intelligence unit, and saw up close the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles.
This is the website of Vicky Davis. email@example.com
My other website is http://www.channelingreality.com
Vicky was a Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer turned Internet Researcher and writer. She received her training in computer programming in Santa Clara, California in the mid-1970s. She worked primarily – but not entirely on IBM mainframe systems for large corporations and government entities. As an Internet Researcher, she continues to apply her analytical skills focusing her research on the revolution in government from the systems perspective.
About Me and this Website
When I first started this research, the cognitive dissonance was almost overwhelming. On the internet, I was reading and seeing things that indicated something had gone terribly wrong in America but in the small town where I was living, everything seemed perfectly normal. Through my computer screen, I saw nightmares while outside, I could hear lawnmowers, children laughing, dogs barking – all of the normal sounds that indicate all is well. When I would go to the store or other public places, I would search people’s faces looking for some sign that they knew things weren’t right but I didn’t see any signs. I was completely alone with my terror – except for the faceless and nameless few friends I found on the internet who were as concerned as I was.
I tried talking to my family about what I was seeing which was a completely different America than our shared perceived vision that had developed over my lifetime. That was a mistake as most Internet activists can attest. Minds are closed and sleeping up until the time when they personally receive some kind of shock that clues them to the possibility that there is something going on about which they were unaware. Then and only then are they willing to listen and to receive new information that alters their world view.
I had to reconcile the information I was getting on the Internet with my life off the Internet. I had to prove that I was not crazy, not imagining things and not believing fiction produced by unreliable sources on the Internet. Since I had been a Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer and I knew how to use the Internet to search for information, I did what came naturally. I applied my skills and talent as an Analyst in a deliberate mission to figure out the Who, What, Where, Why and When of the differences in my perception of America versus what I was seeing on the Internet. I had to rebuild my mental map of the world and how it works.
One thing led to another and I started building logical connections from one research topic to another –
What’s your medicine Gentleman,
Farage Looks at Bojo and Says it’s your Round,
Trump Looks at Alex Jones and Says Are you gonna get a Warm Limey Beer I don’t drink.
The barman looks at Ron Paul and says,
The Bumper Sticker back in the Day would read.
“antiestablishmentarianism, putting the citizen back into Civics”
Cultural Marxism, why not Cultural Liberalism, or Cultural Fascism?
Cultural Political Correctness is the Catch-All for that limited manifest of the Ships Stores for these purposes it is a sufficiency.
be more like Vinnie perhaps.
The tragedy of Kosovo, Twenty years on, NATO’s Kosovo campaign is a testament to the horrors of ‘humanitarian intervention’. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/22/the-tragedy-of-kosovo/
How the Balkans should be? The distance between rhetoric and reality gapes widest in relation to the claim that, as Kosovo’s EU-approved constitution proclaims repeatedly, it is ‘a multi-ethnic society’. This, after all, is supposedly what the war was all about: Blair claimed at the time that ‘it was fought for [the] fundamental principle… that every human being, regardless of race, religion or birth, has the inalienable right to live free from persecution’.
PROFESSOR BRUCE CHARLTON, PC, PLAYING THE MAN AND NOT THE BALL. #JESUISBOURGOISEBLANCHOMME #CONQUESTOFDOUGH. JE SUIS BOURGEOISE BLANC HOMME. STAY SAFE ONLINE AND ON THE STREETS. #OCCUPYTHEEUROPEANSPRING CATCH UP DEMOCRACY! PC IS INDIFFERENT TO OUTCOMES. ‘OUTCOMES’ ARE REGARDED AS HAVING NO AUTONOMOUS REALITY, BUT ARE MERELY SEEN AS PART OF ABSTRACT THEORY.
Cestui Que Vie
Cestui que vie is French for he who lives. It is a legal term for an individual who is the beneficiary of a trust or insurance policy, with rights to property and the income and profits that the property provides.
BREAKING DOWN Cestui Que Vie Cestui que vie as a legal concept dates to the medieval period, specifically England. During this time, the owners of farms and other properties could be absent for extended periods of time as they travelled, whether for business or religious purposes.
William N. Grigg said…
What you are describing is not a misunderstanding about the principles of civics, but the vast and perhaps unbridgeable gulf that separates genuinely civilized people from those who subscribe to statist superstition.
I understand and have written a great deal about, the principle recognized by Augustine in the 5th Century — namely, that a government is a robber band that has achieved territorial mastery and granted itself impunity. It is, in other words, the most successful aggressor.
I reject the proposition that aggression can be moral, or that we should pretend that successful aggression should be ratified. “Limiting” the supposed right to commit aggression is neither morally correct nor practical– as the failure of the constitutional system demonstrates. (Remember how the Constitution “permanently” limited legislative power, and kept it separate from executive and judicial power? How did that arrangement work out?)
The only way out of our predicament is for people to stop validating aggression in any form.
John Studzinski’s imminent departure from HSBC for the comparatively tranquil waters of US private-equity firm Blackstone will be keenly felt by the bank. “It is often said that a successful advisory business is built upon personalities,” says Iain Dey in The Sunday Telegraph. Well, enigmatic Renaissance man “Studz” is about “the biggest personality in the business”.
Vivienne Westwood, who often bemoans Britain’s lack of “salon culture”, should have a quiet word with Studz. The American’s gatherings – at his riverside 1771 Robert Adam house in Chelsea – are known for an eclecticism that reflects his polymath interests. A trustee of Tate Modern, patron of the arts and devout Roman Catholic, Studz mixes artists, authors and musicians with clergy, politicians, royalty and captains of industry. Here you will find the Duchess of Kent and Sting; Lord Browne of BP and members of the Gucci family. Perhaps they are admiring Studz’s Man Ray and Picasso collection; perhaps scrutinising the candlesticks in his private chapel that used to belong to Ignatius Loyola. Studz might mix with the jet-set, but he was made a Knight of the Order of St Gregory for a record of good works, including 30 years working with the homeless. The Catholic church in Britain is “so beholden to him”, says Cristina Odone in The Observer, “that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor changes his diary to fit in with Studzinski’s”.
“The passion for freedom dieth not.”
“ legend has it that after the bloody battle of Thermopylae, the victor Xerxes prepared to spread a purple cloak over the body of his vanquished enemy Leonidas, out of admiration for his valor. But as he was about to lower the cloak, a strange voice out of nowhere called out: “No. Take that cloak from me. I will accept no favor from the Persians.” And Xerxes knew that it was Leonidas, speaking to him from the other world. And he called out into space: “But thou art dead, Leonidas. Why hate the Persians even in death?” And, according to the legend, back came the stirring reply: “The passion for freedom dieth not.”
Al Smith’s passion for freedom did not die with him. It is ours to nurture today. May we all be true to that great legacy.”
1. Tommy Robinson is on trial again tomorrow for the same contempt of court matter he was already jailed for once. I’ll be covering the trial on Twitter as always, and also on video. We’re also bringing http://RealReporters.uk — because you can’t trust the Media Party.
Read the guidance yourself I think that Tommy was denied a proper Brief familiar with both the Canterbury case and the Extant one was a Big Own Goal by the presiding Judge and the prosecuting officer.
I think the State has got its knickers in a twist with this, The Chabloz case and the Dunkula case. I looked at the court listings for the Leeds Case and to say its extensive is an understatement, That Tommy pleaded guilty is I think an indication of how poorly advised he in fact was.
As for the Secret Barrister, he should remain anonymous should he reveal his identity no one would instruct his chambers.
🎵And the judge and the jury, they all put the blame on me
They wouldn’t go for my story, they wouldn’t hear my plea…
Only you can set me free, coz I’m guilty, guilty as a girl can be
Come on baby, can’t you see, I stand accuuuused of love in the first degree🎵
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
Firstly, Bananarama erroneously assume that the judge AND the jury are judging the merits of the defence. This is simply not true. Judges in Crown Courts, even Courts of Love, are judges of law alone. The verdict is for the jury.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
If Bananarama simply wanted to contest the *factual basis* of their admitted guilt, then they should be having a trial of issue (“Newton hearing”) in front of a judge alone. Their advocate should have advised them as such. This is plainly negligent.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
In any event, there are live criminal proceedings and Bananarama are imploring the key witness (“only you can set me free”) to intervene to prevent the consequences of their admitted criminality. Bananarama are shamelessly attempting to pervert the course of justice.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
In conclusion, nothing about this Bananarama trial sits right with me. While we must be calm and not jump to conclusions without knowing the full facts, I am deeply troubled that something has gone badly wrong. Or that Bananarama’s legal research is not what it should be.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
TOMMY Robinson was left humiliated by a judge as he lost his “discrimination” case against police today.
The EDL founder was told by Judge Karen Walden-Smith “you’re not as well known as you think you are,” after taking Cambridgeshire Police to court for harassment.
Mr Lennon isn’t as well-known as he and his supporters may think
Judge Karen Walden-Smith
Judge Karen Walden-Smith said: “In my judgment there’s no evidence that Mr Lennon was being treated differently because of his beliefs about fundamentalist Islam.”
Venality of the Press.
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 0207 782 4368 . You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.
UN Launches All-Out War On Free Speech https://t.co/TOai9U5YQ7
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 12, 2019
Translations of this item:
- In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.
- Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.
Gatestone Institute is a conservative think tank with a focus on Islam and the Middle East. It was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald, who serves as its president. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton, now national security advisor, was its chairman from 2013 to March 2018. Its current chairman is Amir Taheri.
The Gatestone Institute has
been frequently described as “anti-Muslim”,[a] regularly publishes articles to stoke anti-Muslim fears,and has published false stories pertaining to Muslims and Islam. Gatestone frequently warns of a looming “jihadist takeover” and “Islamization” of Europe, leading to a “Great White Death”. Gatestone authors have a particular interest in Germany and Sweden, and frequently criticize leaders such as Macron and Merkel.
In 2012, the Gatestone Institute hosted a talk by Geert Wilders. Gatestone has been criticized for affiliating itself with Wilders, who says that he “hates Islam.” In 2016, Gatestone paid for Wilders’ flights and hotels on trips to the United States, and has published his writings.
Policy analyst J. Dana Stuster of the National Security Network, writing in The Hill, criticized Gatestone as “paranoid” for claiming that immigration to Europe was “civilization jihad” and a “Muslim invasion”.
Gatestone’s founder, Nina Rosenwald, has been accused of anti-Muslim bias by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Muslim writers for the Gatestone Institute have defended the organization and Rosenwald against the claims by CAIR. Zuhdi Jasser said, “It goes without saying, but to those who may not know Nina, and having known her now for many years, it is clear to me that she has the highest respect for Muslims who love their faith, love God, and take seriously our Islamic responsibility to defeat the global jihad and its Islamist inspiration.” Alan Dershowitz, a Gatestone Institute fellow disputed that the organization was anti-Muslim, noting it had “numerous Muslims” and that “many of Gatestone’s articles are, in fact, pro-Muslim”.
The Brookings Institution is an American research group founded in 1916 on Think Tank Row in Washington, D.C. It conducts research and education in the social sciences, primarily in economics, metropolitan policy, governance, foreign policy, and global economy and development. Its stated mission is to “provide innovative and practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous, and cooperative international system.”
Brookings has five research programs at its Washington, D.C. campus (Economic Studies, Foreign Policy, Governance Studies, Global Economy and Development, and Metropolitan Policy) and three international centers based in Doha, Qatar (Brookings Doha Center); Beijing, China (Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy); and New Delhi, India (Brookings India).
An investigation by The New York Times, reported on September 6, 2014, found the Brookings Institution to be among more than a dozen Washington research groups to have received payments from foreign governments while encouraging U.S. officials to encourage support for policies aligned with those foreign governments’ agenda.
The New York Times published documents showing that Brookings Institution accepted grants from Norway with specific policy requests and helped the country gain access to U.S. government officials, as well as other “deliverables”. In June 2014, Norway agreed to make an additional $4 million donation to Brookings. Several legal specialists who examined the documents told the paper that the language of the transactions “appeared to necessitate Brookings filing as a foreign agent” under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.
The Qatari government was named by The New York Times as “the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings”, having reportedly made a $14.8 million, four-year contribution in 2013. A former visiting fellow at a Brookings affiliate in Qatar reportedly said that “he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatar government in papers”. Brookings officials denied any connection between the views of their funders and their scholars’ work, citing reports that questioned the Qatari government’s education reform efforts and criticized its support of militants in Syria. However, Brookings officials reportedly acknowledged that they meet with Qatari government officials regularly.
Michael Glenn Mullen, AO, MSC (born October 4, 1946) is a retired United States Navy admiral, who served as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2011.
|Born||October 4, 1946|
Mullen previously served as the Navy’s 28th Chief of Naval Operations from July 22, 2005, to September 29, 2007. He was only the third officer in the Navy’s history to be appointed to four different four-star assignments; the other appointments being the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Commander, Allied Joint Force Command Naples from October 2004 to May 2005, and as the 32nd Vice Chief of Naval Operations from August 2003 to August 2004. As Chairman, Mullen was the highest-ranking officer in the United States Armed Forces. He retired from the Navy after over 42 years of service. Since 2012, Mullen has been a visiting professor at Princeton University‘s Woodrow Wilson School
2007 Senate testimony regarding the Iraq War
During Mullen’s Senate confirmation hearings for his first term nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen identified political progress in Iraq as a critical component of Iraq policy. He noted that, “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq. He also said, “If [the Iraqis] aren’t making progress in [the political] realm, the prospects for movement in a positive direction are not very good. Failure to achieve tangible progress toward [political] reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment.” Mullen further told the Senate that the United States needs to “bring as much pressure on [Iraq’s political leaders] as [the U.S.] possibly can.”
Regarding the length and scope of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Mullen told the Senate that while he does not envision permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, “vital interests in the region and in Iraq require a pragmatic, long-term commitment that will be measured in years, not months.”
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010
President Obama, Secretary of Defense Panetta and Admiral Mullen provided the certification required by the Act to Congress on July 22, 2011. Implementation of repeal was completed 60 days later, so that DADT was no longer policy as of September 20, 2011.
Views on use of military force
In a speech at Kansas State University, Mullen outlined his views about the best application of military force in present times. He characterized most wars, such as World War II, as wars of attrition, where the reduction or elimination of enemy forces signaled victory. He characterized the Cold War as an issue of containment. In characterizing the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he described them as “a fight against a syndicate of Islamic extremists led by al-Qaeda and supported by a host of both state and non-state actors”, citing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as their “epicenter”.
Mullen outlined three principles about the “proper use of modern military forces”:
- Military power should not be the last resort of the state: Mullen pointed to the readiness and capacity of military forces to respond to crises as reason to deploy them sooner, rather than later, in response. “We can, merely by our presence, help alter certain behavior.”
- Force should be applied in a precise and principled way: Mullen cites the sacrifice involved in deployment as requiring extreme care. Secondly, Mullen argues that “the battlefield isn’t necessarily a field anymore. It’s in the minds of the people.” He cites General McChrystal’s restriction of night raids as an example of this principle in action.
- Policy and strategy should constantly engage with one another: Given that current engagements are open-ended, Mullen posits that military strategy must be more constantly engaged with policy. “…war has never been a set-piece affair. The enemy adapts to your strategy and you adapt to his.” He cites the review process which led to the current Afghanistan escalation as a model of engagement between military leaders and policy makers.
The National Security Network (NSN) was a non-profit foreign policy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States, that focused on international relations, global affairs and national security. Characterizing itself as “progressive,” the NSN’s mission statement asserts the group aimed to “build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin.”
NSN “suspended active operations” as of March 2016, according to their website.
Its founder, Rand Beers, was a Bush Administration counter-terrorism expert and is the former National Security Adviser to the John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Beers resigned from NSN in 2009 to serve as Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Among other things, the National Security Network acts as a resource for media outlets, releasing frequent opinion papers on a wide variety of foreign policy issues and engaging in rapid responses to current events. It also hosted the liberal global affairs blog Democracy Arsenal.
Council on American–Islamic Relations
|Roula Allouch, Chairman
Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director
|70+ [needs update]|
|300+ [needs update]|
The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide. Through civil rights actions, media relations, civic engagement, and education, CAIR promotes social, legal and political activism among Muslims in America.
Critics of CAIR have accused it of pursuing an Islamist agenda and have claimed that the group is connected to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, claims which CAIR has rejected and described as an Islamophobic smear campaign. Due to alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the government of the United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.
The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) has criticized CAIR’s work, saying its position as the “go to American-Muslim civil rights organization” is “undermined by its anti-Israel agenda [which]… dates back to its founding by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas affiliated anti-Semitic propaganda organization”. The ADL also accused the group of hypocrisy in its condemnation of Hezbollah, noting that CAIR “for many years… refused to unequivocally condemn Palestinian terror organizations and Hezbollah by name” and that CAIR began to do so “only when the terrorist organization stopped focusing solely on Israel and began engaging in military operations against Sunni Muslim fighters in Syria and Iraq”. The ADL has also called on CAIR to “denounce anti-Semitism at rallies in the U.S.” CAIR responded with a statement saying that in 2005 they coordinated a fatwa condemning all acts of terrorism as haraam. CAIR also quoted, in the same statement, Rabbi Arthur Waskow‘s speech at a CAIR dinner, where he stated, “Far from showing irreparable conflict between the Jewish community and CAIR, in fact the dinner show[s] that a seriously peace-committed part of the Jewish community can work with a seriously peace-committed part of the Muslim community, despite the existence of some violence-supportive people in both communities. That is the truthful and the important story.”
Some Muslims criticize CAIR for taking a conservative religious approach on many issues. These critics claim that statements by the organization (for example, that all Muslim women are required to veil) often follow conservative Saudi religious doctrine and do not capture diverse religious perspectives.
Steven Emerson has accused CAIR of having a long record of propagating anti-Semitic propaganda. In 2001 journalist Jake Tapper criticized the communication director of CAIR, Ibrahim Hooper, for saying about the September 11 attacks, “If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name,” questioning why there should be any qualification before the statement.
Zuhdi Jasser has argued that CAIR’s agenda is focused on “victimization“. Best-selling author Sam Harris, noted mainly for his contribution to the New Atheism movement, criticized CAIR by saying CAIR is “an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby”.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer‘s 2006 decision to withdraw a “certificate of accomplishment” originally given to former CAIR official Basim Elkarra on grounds of suspicions about the organization’s background “provoked an outcry from organizations that vouch for the group’s advocacy, including the ACLU and the California Council of Churches. “They have been a leading organization that has advocated for civil rights and civil liberties in the face of fear and intolerance, in the face of religious and ethnic profiling,” said Maya Harris, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California.
In 2013, the Governor of Illinois Pat Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department Garry McCarthy, and a wide range of other public officials in Illinois praised the Chicago branch of CAIR for its advocacy work, civil rights work, and for its involvement in the communities it serves.
The Seattle chapter of the League of Women Voters awarded the Washington branch of CAIR one of its 2015 Champion of Voting and Civil Rights Awards, praising “their work encouraging voting and community involvement by members of the Muslim American community”.
Society of the Muslim Brothers
Muslim brotherhood logo with Arabic word “Prepare”
The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمينJamāʿat al-Ikhwān al-Muslimīn), better known as the Muslim Brotherhood (الإخوان المسلمون al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), is a transnational Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt by Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna in 1928. Al-Banna’s teachings spread far beyond Egypt, influencing today various Islamist movements from charitable organizations to political parties—not all using the same name.
The first MB-affiliated organisations in the UK were founded in the 1960s, which comprised exiles and overseas students. They promoted the works of Indian theologician Abu A’la Mawdudi and represented the Jama’at-e-Islami. In their initial phase they were politically inactive in the UK as they assumed they would return to their home countries and instead focused on recruiting new members and to support the MB in the Arab World.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the MB and its associated organisations changed to a new strategy of political activity in western countries with the purpose to promote the MB overseas but also preserve the autonomy of Muslim communities in the UK.
In the 1990s, the MB established publicly visible organisations and ostensibly “national” organisations to further its agenda, but membership in the MB was and remains a secret. The MB dominated the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and founded the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). MAB became politically active in foreign policy issues such as Palestine and Iraq, while MCB established a dialogue with the then governments.
In 1996, the first representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, Kamal el-Helbawy, an Egyptian, was able to say that “there are not many members here, but many Muslims in the UK intellectually support the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood”.
In September 1999, the Muslim Brotherhood opened a “global information centre” in London.
Since 2001, the ISB has distanced itself from Muslim Brotherhood ideology along with the MCB.
In April 2014, David Cameron, who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time, launched an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the UK and its alleged extremist activities. Egypt welcomed the decision. After Cameron’s decision, the Muslim Brotherhood reportedly moved its headquarters from London to Austria attempting to avoid the investigation.
The Brotherhood was criticised by Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2007 for its refusal to advocate the violent overthrow of the Mubarak government. Issam al-Aryan, a top Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood figure, denounced the al-Qaeda leader: “Zawahiri’s policy and preaching bore dangerous fruit and had a negative impact on Islam and Islamic movements across the world”.
Dubai police chief, Dhahi Khalfan accused Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood of an alleged plot to overthrow the UAE government. He referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as “dictators” who want “Islamist rule in all the Gulf States”.
Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari denounced the Islamist and leftist excuse used by people with hidden motives, who say that Muslim Brotherhood people being tortured is a reason for radical religious extremism.
Numerous officials and reporters question the sincerity of the Muslim Brotherhood’s pronouncements. These critics include, but are not limited to:
- Juan Zarate, former U.S. White House counterterrorism chief (quoted in the conservative publication, FrontPage Magazine): “The Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians”.
- Miles Axe Copeland, Jr., a prominent U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative who was one of the founding members of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) under William Donovan, divulged the confessions of numerous members of the Muslim Brotherhood. These confessions resulted from the harsh interrogations done against them by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, for their alleged involvement in the assassination attempt made against Nasser (an assassination attempt that many believe was staged by Nasser himself). They revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood was merely a “guild” that fulfilled the goals of western interests: “Nor was that all. Sound beatings of the Moslem Brotherhood organizers who had been arrested revealed that the organization had been thoroughly penetrated, at the top, by the British, American, French and Soviet intelligence services, any one of which could either make active use of it or blow it up, whichever best suited its purposes. Important lesson: fanaticism is no insurance against corruption; indeed, the two are highly compatible”.
- Former U.S. Middle East peace envoy Dennis Ross, who told Asharq Alawsat newspaper that the Muslim Brotherhood is a global, not a local organization, governed by a Shura (Consultative) Council, which rejects cessation of violence in Israel, and supports violence to achieve its political objectives elsewhere too.
- The Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud has alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood organization was the cause of most problems in the Arab world. ‘The Brotherhood has done great damage to Saudi Arabia’, he said. Prince Naif accused the foremost Islamist group in the Arab world of harming the interests of Muslims. ‘All our problems come from the Muslim Brotherhood. We have given too much support to this group…” “The Muslim Brotherhood has destroyed the Arab world’, he said. ‘Whenever they got into difficulty or found their freedom restricted in their own countries, Brotherhood activists found refuge in the Kingdom which protected their lives… But they later turned against the Kingdom…’ The Muslim Brotherhood has links to groups across the Arab world, including Jordan’s main parliamentary opposition, the ‘Islamic Action Front’, and the ‘Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas'”. The Interior Minister’s outburst against the Brotherhood came amid mounting criticism in the United States of Saudi Arabia’s longstanding support for Islamist groups around the world…”
- Sarah Mousa of Al Jazeera reported on the Muslim Brotherhood’s highly improbable claim that opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohammad ElBaradei (who has had a “rocky” relationship with the US) was “an American agent”, and observed that the since-defunct Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Shura Council’s support of the slander demonstrated a lack of commitment to democracy.
- Scholar Carrie Rosefsky Wickham finds official Brotherhood documents ambiguous on the issue of democracy: “This raises the question of whether the Brotherhood is supporting a transition to democracy as an end in itself or as a first step toward the ultimate establishment of a political system based not on the preferences of the Egyptian people but the will of God as they understand it”.
Status of non-Muslims
- In 1997, Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mustafa Mashhur told journalist Khalid Daoud that he thought Egypt’s Coptic Christians and Orthodox Jews should pay the long-abandoned jizya poll tax, levied on non-Muslims in exchange for protection from the state, rationalized by the fact that non-Muslims are exempt from military service while it is compulsory for Muslims. He went on to say, “we do not mind having Christian members in the People’s Assembly… [T]he top officials, especially in the army, should be Muslims since we are a Muslim country… This is necessary because when a Christian country attacks the Muslim country and the army has Christian elements, they can facilitate our defeat by the enemy”. According to The Guardian newspaper, the proposal caused an “uproar” among Egypt’s 16 million Coptic Christians and “the movement later backtracked”.
Response to criticisms
According to authors writing in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine Foreign Affairs: “At various times in its history, the group has used or supported violence and has been repeatedly banned in Egypt for attempting to overthrow Cairo’s secular government. Since the 1970s, however, the Egyptian Brotherhood has disavowed violence and sought to participate in Egyptian politics”. Jeremy Bowen, the Middle East editor for the BBC, called it “conservative and non-violent”. The Brotherhood “has condemned” terrorism and the 9/11 attacks.
The Brotherhood itself denounces the “catchy and effective terms and phrases” like “fundamentalist” and “political Islam” which it claims are used by “Western media” to pigeonhole the group, and points to its “15 Principles” for an Egyptian National Charter, including “freedom of personal conviction … opinion … forming political parties … public gatherings … free and fair elections …”
Similarly, some analysts maintain that whatever the source of modern Jihadi terrorism and the actions and words of some rogue members, the Brotherhood now has little in common with radical Islamists and modern jihadists who often condemn the Brotherhood as too moderate. They also deny the existence of any centralized and secretive global Muslim Brotherhood leadership. Some claim that the origins of modern Muslim terrorism are found in Wahhabi ideology, not that of the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to anthropologist Scott Atran, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood even in Egypt has been overstated by Western commentators. He estimates that it can count on only 100,000 militants (out of some 600,000 dues paying members) in a population of more than 80 million, and that such support as it does have among Egyptians—an often cited figure is 20 percent to 30 percent—is less a matter of true attachment than an accident of circumstance: secular opposition groups that might have countered it were suppressed for many decades, but in driving the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, a more youthful constellation of secular movements has emerged to threaten the Muslim Brotherhood’s dominance of the political opposition. This has not yet been the case, however, as evidenced by the Brotherhood’s strong showing in national elections. Polls also indicate that a majority of Egyptians and other Arab nations endorse laws based on “Sharia”.
Front cover of Muslim Mafia
|Author||Paul David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry|
|Cover artist||Linda Daly|
|Subject||Islamic terrorism, Nonfiction|
|October 15, 2009 (1st edition)|
|Media type||Hardcover; electronic|
|LC Class||BP173.7 .G38 2009|
Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America is a 2009 book by U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and former U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations special agent Paul David Gaubatz, and investigative journalist and Hoover Institute fellow Paul Sperry. According to the Charlotte Observer, it “portrays the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a subversive organization allied with international terrorists.”
The book prompted endorsements from a number of conservative writers and requests by several conservative members of the United States Congress for investigations into CAIR’s possible terrorist links and undue influence. It also prompted denouncements from CAIR, media outlets and other members of Congress. The manner in which its source documents were obtained led CAIR to sue one of the authors.
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (Democrat, California), “appalled” by the situation created by the book and the four Republican endorsements, said “I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in denouncing this witch hunt, which is clearly intended to create fear and distrust in our Capitol Hill community.” The book and its endorsement from the four Congressmen were denounced on the House floor by Congressman Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota), the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, in a speech that included a statement by the House’s Tri-Caucus (consisting of about 87 House members), officially entered into the Congressional Record and broadcast on C-SPAN on October 26, 2009.
I appreciate this series John it begs so many questions though Blair first up is no more a Left Winger or Socialist Than Mrs May is a Tory or Conservative they are both Neo-Liberal Fascists as are Trudeau, Vardeker, Tusk, Junker, Verhofstad, and Macron.
Next up just as being Anti Israeli State Extreme Right Wing Zionism I call it Netanyahu Zionism is not Anti-Semitic, Similarly being Anti Pakistani Grooming Gang is simply not Islamaphobic or Rascist.
Pandorama is a good FIlm exposing BBC Bias and Hope not Hate,
tommy has explained much of the State action against him which has been confiscatory and vindictive similar tactics were visited on Moar Dib the maker of 7// the ripple effect and on 9/11 Dr David Kelly did not die by his own hand.
Tom Watson’s excesses are completely in line with Establishment Trough Swillers like Watson, Blair and the rest of them. Corbyn is a peculiar species of career politician it is to his credit though that he at least appears to like a bit of the other and Dianne Abbot was pretty dishy back in the day, I once met Oona King at a reception in Whitehall and would have loved to have been in the position of doing a Corbyn with her , she was lovely, I met the Odious Lib Dem Simon Hughes at the same event, and would have loved to Go full intercity Chav on him.
My Point is that Brexit is a Pantomime and Anyone being demonised is more than likely One of the good guys.
There is a lot of Snobbery against Tommy basically he is a very courageous and I would argue sincere man.
My old Chauffeur/Minder from my Lord of the Manor days is a devout Pakistani Muslim, he like me understands and supports Tommy’s positions although I myself think whilst Tommy has Salafist Wahabbism very well understood he is mistaken about the prophet. and Islam in general. Cultural assimilation and Integration are difficult concepts and many people are ill-equipped to judge these things as Tommy demonstrates so ably in this video.
@Caratacus , That made me Smile a broad smile.
Brought to mind this Ted Talk on the subject.
March 5, 2019 at 4:38 pm
Tommy is a zionist shill…
Zionism and an interest in the Jewish people in Israel who do not support Netanyahu Zionism are two very different things. It strikes me that Tommy may be less well informed on Zionism than he is on Islam I doubt somehow that he has read much Sufi philosophy or indeed Maimonides.
Always in divide and rule strategies of the Oligarchy, a fostering of my enemies enemy is my friend thinking is adopted and encouraged.
Two Blogs on The Theology.
“The Vision of Christ that thou dost see
Is my Visions Greatest Enemy
Thine has a great hook nose like thine
Mine has a snub nose like to mine5Thine is the Friend of All Mankind
Mine speaks in parables to the Blind
Thine loves the same world that mine hates
Thy Heaven doors are my Hell Gates
Socrates taught what Melitus10Loathd as a Nations bitterest Curse
And Caiphas was in his own Mind
A benefactor of Mankind
Both read the Bible day & night
But thou readst black where I read white”
Blake. The everlasting Gospel.
brent1023 • 4 years ago
This article makes the assumption that there is only one zionism.
It would be a mistake to assume there is only one Jew and to be anti-Jew because of the actions of one person.
It is also possible that deciding to be anti-zionist because you find Netanyahu-zionism appalling is a similar mistake.
How did Netanyahu-zionism – an extreme form of zionism – get to define zionism?
I personally reject Netanyahu-zioinism because in my view it cannot lead to a solution to existing problems in the middle east. It can only make those problems worse and worse.
That does not mean I reject zionism – the zionism of the early years of the state as practised by the few Israelis I knew. My understanding of their vision and their life seemed to me something that could have led to a stable future.
That was pre-wall, pre-extreme settlement policy days.
I am not convinced that Netanyahu-zionism was an inevitable outcome of those days. I could be wrong. I am not sure how anyone could prove that Netanyahu-zionism is the only possible zionism. I certainly don’t understand why so many people act as if Netanyahu-zionism is the only possible zionism.
Hi Kevin, in the comments the whole polarity and polarisation alienation of the debate plays out . Over and over the same taunts are rehearsed.
Jay, I do not know how much you know about Politics in Israel, and how deeply you have read into the Geo Politics surrounding Zionism in the late 19th Century and going back further into Jewish History and indeed Feudalism. Its a big ask to expect everyone to accord to your own take on things and to assume they operate in accordance to your own assemblage of information and understanding.
Enchiridion 42: How logic proves no fucks should ever be given towards other’s thoughts or actions towards you
Man this really hit hard for me and drilled it in. On one hand, it is easy to say “Stop worrying about what is out of your control.” But this passage hit the nail on the head for me and explained it in a way that metabolizes it for my subconscious.
“42. When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, “It seemed so to him.” ”
Following on from yesterday’s post about immigration dishonesty, The Slog digs up the roots of Britain’s population explosion to find the entire political class guilty of dissembling dereliction and reality rejection. Top of the list of miscreants is Tony Blair….but the contemporary Labour/Islam alliance follows the appalling example he set.
The story of how Britain’s immigration spiralled out of control after 1997 is perhaps one of the greatest examples of how blind Leftlib belief in experts can backfire.
In 2003, Home Office officials seized upon a report produced by Christian Dustmann, of University College London, in which it was estimated that – in the light of Poland’s access to EU free movement policy – around 13,000 Poles would arrive in the UK during 2004.
In fact, 430,000 turned up during the following three years…so the “expert” research was wrong by 91%.
All this was happening on Tony Blair’s…
View original post 2,064 more words
First off, a slight correction as to my speculations yesterday regards the Tommy Robinson affair. Apparently, Robinson was aware of reporting restrictions on the case. He simply did not understand why these restrictions were in place, namely to avoid jury contamination. Everyone has the right to fair trial. Similar restrictions are currently in place for several high-profile nationalist trials. We cannot complain about contempt rules only when it suits us. Readers will have decide for themselves whether or not Robinson’s actions were deliberately intended to a) jeopardise potential convictions and/or b) to deflect attention away from my case. The most relevant point is that it is indeed the issue of free speech which is the prime motivator of current support for Robinson. We now need to open his supporters’ eyes to those who are in fact behind the desire to further limit our most precious of freedoms.
Meet the Tommy Robinson supporters – BBC Newsnight
Published on Jul 18, 2018
Tommy Robinson was jailed in May after he admitted contempt of court by filming outside Leeds Crown Court in the UK during a trial.
Subscribe to our channel here: https://goo.gl/31Q53F
Here Gabriel Gatehouse meets the people who are fighting to free Tommy Robinson.
You also hear from the leader of UKIP Gerard Batten who has taken up Robinson’s cause.
Warning: This piece contains strong language and language that some may find very offensive.
Rather Tellingly Comments are Disabled on this Video
BBC News – Tommy Robinson on why he quit English Defence League https://t.co/1yjnQfTKh4
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) July 12, 2019
I read an essay about Henry Kissinger’s Doctoral Thesis yesterday, http://www.classicsofstrategy.com/…/henry-kissinger-a…. It is a very good essay and explains well how Governments find it difficult to justify Real Politick at home, it contrasts Metternick the Austrian Diplomats experience of the Phenomenon with that of Castlereagh the British Foreign Secretary and their roles in the Vienna Treaty of 1815 post the Napoleonic wars. This treaty lasted well up to the momentous events of 1848 a period between the French revolutions and the Myriad revolutions of 1848.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
In Part 1 we look at the sweep of dominant narratives built upon 2000 years of the Judaeo Christian Tradition and contrast it to the Orthodoxy of Abrahamic verbal Torah tradition.
I noticed this exchange in the off guardian discussion about the #DumberandDouma false Flag attempted half baked Casus Belli.
What is the direction of travel and the main narrative embedded in the Narrative of the past 40 years? The Rules-Based International Order or ( New World Order ) Narratives.
1. Globalisation and Urbanisation.
2.PetroDollar Hegemony. Addiction to Oil.
4. Overshoot Overpopulation
5. Elitism, Starfucking worship of ”The Elites**
https://youtu.be/-LsttRlIBtQ At Easter Time it is interesting to see this interview in which the other secular Religión of our time also challenges for the Replacing of Calvary by some other Iconic catastrophe
USURY HELL´S FUEL MANS OPPRESSOR
BOURGOISE RESOLUTION AND
GLOBALISATION UN ENTANGLED.
the idea before it was clothed in words
so near 50 years behindhand a hero fell.
Our reason can be our Judge, of the rivals;
Globalism, Authority, coercion and competition.
Parmenides or Heraclitus navigators both
If centuries be epochs with peculiar discretion