Sunday, 5 July 2015

"ISIS are not Islamic" - the pivotal moment that inspired Theresa May to recast the Nasty Party the mould of the Pakistani People Party.

We have heard it a thousand times over from the Conservative top brass (the leaders of our country) - whenever an Islamic inspired terrorist event occurs, their first thought is not for the people of this country, instead their first thought is to protect Islam from criticism.

It was so obvious, and such an obviously inappropriate response, I thought there must be more too it, so did a bit of digging.

David Cameron has spouted many lines about the superiority of Islam to the British way of life - most well known his statement:-
I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around
(Remembering, of course, that Asian is the modern progressive way to refer to Muslims without mentioning religion).

While both David Cameron and Theresa May are very insistent on what is and is not Islamic (despite no formal training or study that they have declared), the impression that I had built up was that Theresa May was even more defensive of Islam that David Cameron - an impression from various speeches, statements etc she has made as reported in the main stream media - nothing private, no inside information, no leaks.

So I decided to look into Theresa May's background a little, wondering if there would be any clue as to how Islam could have made such a remarkable and enduring impression on her.

The first thing I noticed is that she is very austere, very po faced, very private and there is not much information in the public domain about her - quite remarkable for such a powerful figure.

However there was a reference to Theresa May first meeting her husband (to be), and it transpired that they were introduced at university by a friend - none other than Benazir Bhutto who went on to be the first female leader of a muslim state - being elected on two different occasions to the post of Prime Minister of Pakistan and being assassinated in 2007 when expected to win the post on a third occasion having just returned from exile.

At the time of her assassination (December 2007) which was after the 9/11 (September 2001) attack on the 'Twin Towers', but before Osama bin Laden the 'master mind' and leader of al-Qaeda had been found and killed in Pakistan (May 2011) where he is believed to have been living possibly since 2004, Benazir Bhutto was completing a book entitled 'Reconciliation: Democracy, Islam Democracy and the West.

In her book, Benazir Bhutto makes clear her view of Islam - a view given to her by her father - and while it is presented by, and in the language of a twice elected Prime Minister of a complex country, underneath it is a rather naive, child like view - were she a Christian you could imagine she would be thinking of God being an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud.

Benazir clearly put her country, its people, their culture and democracy first - but then tried to weave a narrative for Islam (to which she was committed) that would make it fit - it is this narrative that seems to be the same one promulgated by Theresa May and then by David Cameron.

One can understand that Theresa May could well see Benazir Bhutto as a model for her own career - and to have a friend murdered in such circumstances, and then for her book to be posthumously published - this could well be the pivotal moment that I had guessed had to exist. And all just a couple of years before the Conservative party is elected to government, and although in government in a coalition, it was a coalition with a party who were themselves very anti-English, anti-British and in favour of diluting British culture with alien cultures, continuing the work done by the previous Labour administration over more than a decade under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to make the UK a 'rainbow nation' of 'multi-culturalism'.

Unfortunately Benazir Bhutto's attempts to spin Islam into a coherent model with Democracy and the West, as being peaceful and opposing the work of the jihads terrorists is laughable.

In the second chapter where she starts her apologetic for Islam, of the many failings, one of the most startling was her quoting part of the Koran calling for the subjugation of non-Muslims and then explaining:-
Although this verse may appear superficially problematical, a close reading shows that it does not advocate violence against people of the Book, only those who reject God and his teachings outright.

So even this most moderate of Muslims, seeking to reconcile Islam and the West, says that the Koran does call for violence against atheists - but Christians may be OK.

She also states that Jihad is not one of the Five Pillars of Islam - before qualifying that with a reference to Khariji theory - where (presumably) it is. Further on Jihad she states "If the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on the others." - personally I do not find it reassuring that Muslims may only be restraining themselves from Jihad because someone else is doing it for them elsewhere...

Also (still only in the second chapter), she states that the Koran is against terrorism and the killing 'innocents' - but as the terrorists of ISIS claim they are at war, and non-Muslims are not 'innocent' they would seem to agree with her, but believe they are working within that 'rule'.

Regarding 'proof' that Mohammed values life she cites an edict that a Muslim may deny their faith verbally to save their life, as long as they keep the fail 'in their heart'. Again I am not reassured, as this suggests it would be Ok to kill someone if they didn't keep the faith in their heart(!).

There are many examples of this, arguments that may work in the mind of a girl who adores her father and his memory and dare not contradict his teachings, but not arguments that anyone would be foolish enough to present in a genuine Western Democracy - as they would crumble before they had cleared the speakers lips.

Unfortunately these are the arguments that have entered Theresa Mays head, and have been spread among the Conservative Party hierarchy.

This half baked misunderstanding of what was being presented and why may also explain the amazing rise of Sayeeda (Baroness) Warsi - presumably seen as a 'young Benazir' by the Conservative high-command, followed by her rapid fall when it was found there was nothing to her - but this would have been true even had she been a young Benazir, as the logic supporting Islam in the West with Democracy was always flawed.

UK MP's think Daesh "blues the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists" and that is good? - huh? - isn't English their first language?

UK MPs wrote to the BBC asking them to stop calling the new Caliphate 'Islamic State' and to call it 'Daesh' instead.

If you want the full background on where the word 'Daesh' comes from and why Islamic state may not like it have an item on this in this weeks broadcast (online till next Friday 10th July).

But the point of this blog post...

International Business Times have an article with a copy of the letter sent to the BBC by the MPs, and the BBC's reply.

I was stunned on reading the third paragraph where they promote the use of Daesh because it "blues the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists".

WTF is that supposed to mean? There is a common English phrase "blurs the line(s)" it could be they meant 'blurs' instead of 'blues' - but the point of the the phrase 'blurring lines' is that it makes things harder to differentiate/separate - and surely this is the opposite of what is intended! The idea is to separate Islamic State from other Muslims - not blur the lines between them?

What an insult to the English language that this letter should go out like this - and what a joke that it is trying to advise the BBC on the use of the English language!

Here are the links:

IBT article

MP's Letter to the BBC

BBC's Reply

Monday, 22 June 2015

The real reason purdah has uniquely been abandoned for the EU Referendum.

The 'for Britain' grouping are reformers. They don't want 'out' they want 'associate membership' that hasn't yet been publicly defined and can't be implemented in the time available before a referendum.

Matthew Elliott, leader of the 'for Britain' groupings, saw the 'Yes2AV' campaign fail because it was led by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) who were *against* AV, they wanted (and still want - the now obsolete) STV.

Matthew Elliott now wants to recreate this in the EUout campaign - by leading it to fail, by leading it as badly and half heartedly as ERS led Yes2AV.

Just before the referendum, if  the in campaign have not already clearly won, then the EU will offer 'associate membership' they will promise it as a 'vow' (as per the Scots independence 'vow' - the promise of Devo Max if scots voted 'in') and the reformers led by Elliott and 'for Britain' will switch from EUout to EUin - this is what they wanted all along (see

The reason purdah has uniquely been abandoned for this referendum is precisely so this last minute Damascene moment can be stage managed - in the last week or so this offer will be made and hugely publicised - and the UK public will be expected to vote 'in' in a promise (cast-iron no doubt). With (but this time) only UKIP still speaking up for out!

Sunday, 21 June 2015

You can't trust reformers to run the #EUout campaign - they may switch sides!

The EUout, Brexit, Brindependence whatever campaign to promote the Exit arguments in the EU Referendum has to be run by people who wanted out last year, want it this year, will want it next year and want it forever.

For instance the EU (rightly for its interests), if it had to choose, would rather have 110 new jobs in Germany than only 100 in the UK. But - I (in the UK's interests) would rather have the 100 in the UK - Germany can look out for itself. This kind of choice happens all the time and (obviously on a far greater scale, millions of jobs, millions of choices) each time the EU's interests is not the same as the UK interest unless by sheer chance.

The EU is a bad idea for the UK, no amount of reform will change the fact that its interests and our interests will often be different, and by being a member we will have to agree to go against out own best interest. This is the national and political equivalent of self-harm.
So clearly, no amount of 'renegotiation' can 'fix' the EU. Anyone who is waiting to see what Cameron gets offered is not really committed to ending this self harm and leaving, they want to know what sweeties they may be offered to keep harming the UK.

If these 'reformers' are allowed influence in the EUout campaign, at any time before the actual referendum they could be offered the right sweeties and switch sides to support staying in.

We can see two things from the Scottish Independence referendum - firstly that it is stupid to make such fundamental decisions based on short term issues, as can and do change, secondly that if you do so a 'Vow' of extra sweeties just before polling can swing the result. For both these reasons anyone who is or has waited to see what Cameron gets offered has ruled themselves out as credible leaders, organisers or activists of the EUout campaign.

The only credible politicians so far that could be part of EUout are #UKIPpers (present, and many former), Kate Hoey and Daniel Hannan.

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

Conservative MP's - Stitched up (un)like Kippers.

Conservative Eurosceptic MP's (if any exists) are now cornered. Either they stay quiet and so passively support Cameron until his renegotiation is complete, or they back Conservatives for Britain and actively support Cameron until his renegotiation is complete.

See whats been done there?

There is no space for any genuine EUout'er to show their face within the Conservative party - at least not until Cameron completes his renegotiation. But what then?

Cameron has said he will be supporting an 'in' vote regardless - he actually said following successful renegotiation, but he'd never admit his renegotiation has been unsuccessful, so it will be declared successful regardless of what it contains and he will back an in vote based on it...

At this point Conservative MP's will have a choice:

Either to back Cameron, close their eyes, cross their fingers and follow where ever Cameron leads them which will be a Cameron led government in or out of the EU.

Or they may chose to oppose Cameron - effectively saying they believe their leader, their elected Conservative Prime Minister is working against the best interests of the country! Whatever happens in the referendum, they will have no career under Cameron - and none in the Conservative party unless the vote was 'out' and one of their number replaced Cameron and followed this with an extensive night of the long knives against all pro-EU conservatives and supporters of Cameron...

The second option is not the Conservative way - anyone capable of such oppositon to the elected leader would have been weeded out well before being selected to run in the last general election.

This is why I believe Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell left the Conservative party - they saw these were the options and realised no Conservative MP would be going against Cameron.

As long as Cameron is the leader of the Conservative party, all Conservative MP's are #EUin.

Monday, 8 June 2015

Prepare for the EU Referendum to be postponed! UKIP will need to win the 2020 General Election to leave.

Cameron and the conservatives are making great play about waiting to see what 'renegotiation' delivers.

I have no doubt that, should an 'in' vote not look certain, then Cameron and the EU will declare treaty changes are required and will be made to meet some objective or other (the actual detail doesn't matter).

At this point it will be declared that it is stupid to have a referendum until the treaty changes have been formerly completed as we will not know for sure what in or out means. And so the referendum will be postponed until the changes are complete.

The treaty changes will not be completed while an 'out' vote is likely.

So there will be no referendum from the Conservatives until 'in' is certain.

Then the only way to get 'out' will be to give UKIP an absolute majority in the 2020 general election.

Sunday, 7 June 2015

Why the EU is fundamentally bad for the UK, and no amount of 'renegotiation' will make it any better.

The EU are acting rationally and sensibly for its own interests - but these are fundamentally different to the interests of the UK. 

'Greater Good'.

This is the core failing of the EU for UK interests.

Greater Good refers to the sacrifice of the good of someone/thing because overall it will be better for the group.

In a family, members may happily make sacrifices for other members of the family or for the family as a whole - although if what is asked/expected is too much then a member may leave or cut themselves off from the family or certain members of it.

As an independent legal entity/personality the EU operates for its own good - but this will often be at the expense of one or more of its members. In fact the only time it matters that the EU is a legal entity with governmental force is when it needs to make a member make a sacrifice for the greater good... otherwise no force/coercion would be required.

So being a member of the EU - instead of a trading partner - means it can oblige the UK to act against the UK's own interests because it benefits some other part of the EU. In fact the ability to oblige the UK to do so is the sole reason for the EU to have any power over the UK at all. As anything that benefited the UK, the UK would freely do anyway, whether or not a member!

The 'flip side' of this is that other countries may be made to act against their best interests to benefit the UK in some way.

Well, I don't want to force countries to do this. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for a countries government to force its people to act against their own interests. And I certainly don't want to benefit from the fruits of such evil coercion!

But even if I didn't have a moral stance on this - the EU is spreading into more and more disadvantaged countries - who have nothing to give up for 'the greater good', so the traffic/sacrifice can only be one way - away from the UK to other parts of the EU.

The EU are acting rationally and sensibly for its own interests - but these are fundamentally different to the interests of the UK.

This is why the UK should leave the EU - so we can act as we see fit for ourselves - not be coerced/obliged to act against our own best interests and be forced to make sacrifices that would not otherwise choose to do.