Few UK voters realise the UK’s current legal system and democracy could easily be replaced by Sharia Law as soon as 2040; naively assuming that, contrary to the title’s implication, Sharia Law, has nothing to do with non-Muslims.
Immigration and far higher birth rates among the UK Muslim population as compared with the rest of the UK caused the Muslim population to increase from the 2001 Census 2.71%, by 1.63 times, to 4.41% in 2011. Demographic experts expected this trend to continue, so that Muslims would constitute 50% of the UK population by 2061, but, now, due to continued mass immigration, Muslims could predominate as early as 2040. Polls in Muslim countries show over 75% support state law being based on Sharia Law, so why should this change when they migrate to the UK?
Even, as UKIP proposed, outlawing Sharia Law and specific aspects of it such as wearing the Burka in public and FGM would not prevent a democratically elected majority of Muslim MP’s enacting a Manifesto pledge to substitute the current UK legal system, based on Western values mostly derived from the Judeo/Christian traditions, with Sharia Law; turning the UK into a truly Muslim State.
Muslim extremist terrorists and 23K+ UK Jihadists wouldn’t be required – other than to police Sharia Law. Making the non-terrorist, seemingly more moderate Muslims look comparatively respectable; the Muslim terrorists’ atrocities distract us from this peaceful invasion and take-over by stealth.
To fully assess whether the imposition of Sharia Law would be a problem or not, we need to examine both what is set out in the Koran and its other sources, as well as Sharia Law based Islamic States regimes. The latter is particularly important as “actions speak louder than words” and as Sharia Law specifically promotes “Taqiyya” – the practice of being allowed to lie to defend and/or advance Islam (Koran 16:106 and 3:28) – we cannot rely on the veracity of any interpretation.
A 2011 UNICEF report concluded that Sharia Law provisions are discriminatory against women from a human rights perspective, highlighting that in legal proceedings under Sharia Law, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s before a (Sharia) court. This is against the fundamental principle of UK law that all individuals are equal before the law, and also against anti-discrimination provisions especially on grounds of gender. Why are establishment feminists silent about the serious and ongoing misogynistic practices derived from Sharia law?
Further medieval and abhorrent examples of Sharia Law provisions concerning women are:
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (Muhammad‘s words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A girl or woman who has been raрed cannot testify in court against her raрist(s).
• Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove the raрe of a girl or woman, failing which a girl or woman who alleges raрe is guilty of adultery – punishable by stoning.
• A man convicted of raрe can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car.
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
Muslim countries recognise that Islam and Christianity are incompatible and so they outlaw Christianity. The Wikipedia article ‘Christianity in Saudi Arabia’ states: “The Saudi Arabian Mutaween, (the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice – religious police) prohibits any religion other than Islam. Conversion of a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death.”
In Pakistan, online comments by Christians have been interpreted as blasphemy even though not being Muslims they should therefore not be subject to Sharia Law. UK Imams interviewed by the BBC following the recent murder of a Pakistani student for alleged blasphemy, did not object to death sentences, saying: “That’s up to the [Sharia] Judge”, but only to the manner of the murder. No wonder the practice of so-called honour-killings continues, even in the UK.
In 1998 the Constitutional Court of Turkey banned and dissolved Turkey’s Refah Party which sought to introduce Sharia Law on the basis that “Democracy is the antithesis of Sharia” – a ruling upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. If this and Sharia Law practices are of no concern in the UK, then we can ‘live and let live’ and thereby allow the Muslim take-over and inevitable imposition of Sharia Law. Otherwise, we need to work out policies to stop the otherwise inevitable. The longer this issue is left unaddressed, then like the North Korea military situation, the larger it will become with potentially commensurate increased difficulty in eventually dealing with it.
When conducting performances of Karl Jenkins’ ‘The Armed Man: a mass for piece’ I have included the sometimes omitted ‘The Call to Prayers’ movement and organised an Imam to sing it – and will do the same again next time I conduct the work. I am not against Muslims as people at all, but I do not want UK law and democracy replaced by Sharia Law.
As I have written elsewhere, in order to engage the majority of the population in this issue, UKIP needs a comprehensive set of imaginative and practical solutions to everyday issues upon which the majority of the electorate vote, as otherwise if the UKIP messenger gets metaphorically shot, then the whole message dies too.
If the majority want Sharia law, how is that different from the majority wanting any other law? We have lots of bad laws for this reason already. The U.S. has a Constitution which protects individual liberty from the will of a predatory majority, but even that protection fails if the majority is sufficient to change the Constitution. Do you believe that the will of the majority should always be absolute, without any entrenched protections for the liberties of the minority? If you do, you cannot object to the majority enacting Sharia Law if that is what they want. I do not; I believe in having an immutable libertarian constitution which protects not only against the imposition of Sharia but also against predatory socialism. This will still not work if the majority which wants something is near absolute.
Why are Muslims are currently on track to becoming a majority in the UK?
– their greater reproduction rate.
– immigration.
Both are caused by the UK having a welfare state much more generous than practically anywhere else. Sweden also has a generous welfare state, so Sweden has an even bigger problem. Why else do you think these people go to Sweden and the UK, but not, say, Estonia? The problem of the homegrown suicide bomber is entirely dependent on a generous welfare state – these people live off the taxpayer, stay at home and complain and plot their terrorist attacks. If they weren’t being funded by the government to do so, they’d be out working or looking for a job.
You will never solve this problem without dealing with the underlying problem of having an insane welfare state and tax system which makes living on welfare a lifestyle choice and indeed in many cases a rational choice.
If you solve the underlying problem, both the main causes of the problem you are concerned about will also automatically go away. The immigrants will go elsewhere, where the welfare state is more generous.
Approaching the problem by vilifying all Muslims (even the decent majority) is an approach which will not solve the problem but likely will lead to serious problems. If following some of the approaches which UKIP Daily is giving platform these days (like the idea of deporting all Muslims) perhaps even civil war.
Do you think a leftist (https://youtu.be/dB_2h7muwvI) will ever admit what needs to be done to solve this problem?
Thanks for posting. This is really helpful for me. Food for thought. Identify the underlying issues and trends and what driving them. The comments on here show freedom of discourse is so essential. Our politicians should have been debating all this from the start and getting public support for their policies. Instead they supress debate and work against the interests of the people. Now we have a major situation to deal with. I notice AMW addresses the welfare system in her manifesto.
With all due respect to Maria and other the nuns of Salzburg:
“Few UK voters realise the UK’s current legal system and democracy could easily be replaced by Sharia Law as soon as 2040; naively assuming that, contrary to the title’s implication, Sharia Law, has nothing to do with non-Muslims.”
A labyrinthine sentence. I parse it as suggesting that, given the assistance of non-Muslims, Sharia could be on us as soon as 2040.
That, frankly, is preposterous, even if there was a mass fear-ridden exodus of non-Muslims.
Separately, the author has emailed me saying “Muslims could become 50% of the UK population by as soon as 2040” and citing http://dailym.ai/2imkDro in support. However, that article doesn’t make any of these claims. Instead it cites an academic report which states white Britons could be in a minority by the 2060s, if not before.
I agree with the academic that there is a (small) possibility that could have happened by the 2060s, but note that Muslims (some of whom are white Britons) are not the only other grouping!
There are also Christians who aren’t “Britons”, non-Briton and Briton Hindus / Buddhists / Sikhs / Bahais / Confucianists / Jains / other Chinese / Japanese / Agnostics / Atheists / Jedis / you name it, and most of whom are more hostile to Sharia than the average white Briton. Plus the (nominal, but apostasy is scary) Muslims who are anti-Sharia.
We have an obligation to be accurate; additionally, when we face the MSM, any error by us is seized upon and used to discredit all that we say.
I am a mathematician. I’ve looked at the numbers.
The earliest credible dates are as follows, and they too rely on trends continuing (including those of exponential growth – the pyramid scheme fallacy):
Muslim majority UK 2070
Muslim voting-age-majority UK 2080
Sharia becoming the overall law 2100
I’ve shared this with several prominent UKIP maths people. One of them is an MEP and he believes, for a number of reasons including attitudes among Muslim youth (about which there is conflicting data e.g. 212999_C4 Survey of Muslims_Dat by ICM Unlimited vs other polling), even my figures are a little bit alarmist.
Before I’m accused of being an apologist, a libtard or whatever else, it IS common ground that this will happen. Unless something fundamentally changes, Britain is set to turn into a Muslim country. The only question is “When?”.
Hi Freddy. It is my understanding that the government does not know how many people are living in the UK. Immigration and arrivals of non-citizens has been uncontrolled with arrivals bypassing all government channels. I keep seeing speculation over what the current population is. 70 or 80 million – no one knows. How many of current population will eventually have the right to vote ? Without even this most basic piece of data surely any projections could be out by potentially decades.
Hi Maximus,
Sorry for not replying earlier. My reply exceeded the word-count limit first (happily and kindly Viv recovered it) and I will present in in 2 parts. Then, last night, I was (lightly) assaulted by a drunk with a chip on his shoulder.
Your concerns, Maximus, are valid. I am slightly reassured that all that you mention had been considered by me prior to writing.
Specifically – I used the Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) population (and composition) figures, plus FIVE TIMES the EU’s estimated MAXIMUM figure for the number of illegals in the UK as at 2008 (i.e., 863K max – press coverage in the UK was only in 2012 but the maximum relates to 2008). In short, I added 4.3 million to the 2017 ONS figure, to allow for a current population of almost 70 million.
I also looked at https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/illegal-immigration
I arbitrarily assumed half the illegals were Muslims (i.e. grossly disproportionate to the ONS figure for legals, but probably about correct).
I am very familiar with National Insurance numbers issuance data (a huge scandal – as many as 25m rogue numbers in circulation?) as well as the (sparse) data that has leaked from supermarkets relating to consumption, food waste (in tons) and filthy domestic waste.
Yes, there is a large margin of error. This error band is smallest for the first date given (for the population of the UK to become 50% Muslim) partly because of the nature of the figure and partly because it is soonest.
To explain – the majority of voting age people becoming Muslim will obviously come after the majority of the UK’s population becoming Muslim, because, more and more, growth in the Muslim population will come from the differential in birth rates and not from primary or secondary immigration. Therefore, the biggest majority for Muslims will be among the youngest (who don’t have voting rights, thankfully).
All this has gone into the computation of “not until 2070 at the earliest” for the country to become 50% Muslim.
(336 words)
Freddy. So I assume there is accurate data available on who currently living in the UK and their residency status & religion. I am sure you inputted accurate data into your mathematical model.
…. However, Maximus, the biggest assumption underpinning my calculations is one you did *not* identify or highlight.
Here it is – my calculations assume this does *not* happen:
In a country which feels it is being physically, culturally, religiously or value-wise being taken over, birth rates can drop (“we can’t bring kids into a world like this!”) and there can be mass emigration (“Briton flight” – note Briton is used here as a reference to values, not to ethnicity) in despair, frustration, anger… Events in Europe in the 1930s produced this (flight, few kids) within a certain community.
If it happens, the transition dates are brought forward.
This may be the root cause of the statistical phenomenon I demonstrated to Hugo Jenks, on which he subsequently elaborated on (including graphically) in UKIPDAILY, that disproportionately few countries in the world have Muslim populations close to 50%.
The dial’s needle seems to move rather fast through that range. The only exception among populous countries is Nigeria, hardly a model of internal harmony (Boko Haram is but one of many reasons – I’ve stayed there for the better part of a week during more peaceful times, not as a tourist, and have some first-hand knowledge of the country).
OTOH, if Muslim birth rates fall, that would push predicted dates back.
If Muslim support for Sharia-implementation fell, it could postpone the last date (the one referred to in the title of this article – when Sharia becomes mandatory for all) indefinitely.
My overriding concern is accuracy. If this makes one faction consider me alarmist, and the other an apologist or blind to danger, so be it. I’ve taken on mainstream journalists on this very subject. There was never any coverage in the end, IMO because they lost all the arguments. Experience tells me had I been found to be in the tiniest bit inaccurate, there would have been negative coverage for UKIP. Hence why I chimed in…
P.S. Mandatory Sharia law can’t be as soon as 2040 – that’s just a generation away. To claim there’s even the remotest possibility of it IMO makes us the butt of ridicule. Leave bad arithmetic/logic to Labour’s magic money tree and Diane’s tuppence per hour bobbies. If we’re not taken seriously, we can’t gain power and do all the useful things that no one else has the testicular fortitude to do.
(393 words)
Freddy.
Thanks for your very detailed post and replies. Demographic data and trends is an area I want to research and understand. I also hope to do some analysis of my own.
The opposition to the mainstream need as much reliable information, data and facts as possible. UKIPs leadership need this information in their toolbox.
Once our new leader chosen hopefully you and your friends and others on here can keep the leadership as informed as possible to arm them for debates and facing the media etc.
Freddy, Muslim support for Sharia can only fall if we ban it. That’s why it has to be done first. I’m reasonably confident that many would embrace British values if they weren’t forced to accept Sharia Law in their communities – where, remember, women’s opinions are worthless – where, remember, you risk something very nasty if you try to leave it. Those that have the softly softly approach have it the wrong way round. We have to achieve freedom of choice for Muslims by rigorous application of British Law, one Law for all. By the time you have undergone FGM you are already cowed into submission with no way out. Next comes the forced marriage, probably under age, and then complete submission. Why can’t everyone see it! It’s a mystery to me. We have to live with those of all faiths and none, but in order for it to be our way, the Western way, it cannot be a parallel system.
Freddy, I am in agreement with your statement: “Unless something fundamentally changes, Britain is set to turn into a Muslim country. The only question is “When?”.”
From my fairly simplistic calculation of growth rate I think we may have a Muslim majority perhaps a decade earlier than your figure. Some years ago I performed a more detailed calculation, although with the caveat that some parameters seem not to be in the public domain. This more detailed calculation also put the Muslim majority a decade or so earlier than your figure.
However, the key point that I now realise: there is noting particularly magical about the 50% population figure. It is the point of no return percentage which is relevant. I suspect that this is around 22%, and will be reached sometime around the year 2040.
Whether it is exactly 22% or exactly 2040 is not material. The key point is that we do not have much time to:
1. Wake up everyone in UKIP to the enormity of the threat.
2. Wake up the voters.
3. Force the government to do something effective to avert the tragedy.
In the first instance, how do we achieve step 1?
Hugo, many of us are doing our best, within the limits of our abilities. It has taken over my life, and I suspect, others lives too. The frustrating,thing is fighting not just the threat and the Government, but some in UKIP as well.
Hugo.
Step 1 achieved by a relentless program of information and speeches by the new leader.
Step 2 achieved by UKIP leadership taking the same message in the same way as in step 1 to the voters.
So we need to elect a leader who understands the threat, can get the message across to the membership and win the memberships loyalty. AMW is the current favorite on here and with me. But no idea about the wider membership. They may not be ready for a radical leader yet. I hope to have this conversation at our next branch meeting and get a feel for level of support for AMW.
Maximus, have you considered that while many current members may not be, potential members may well be. Hence why many have tried to join UKIP to support Anne Marie. Many are holding back because they believe she will be blocked from standing. Which is most important, the future of UKIP and Britain, or some current members hiding behind their sofas.
Hi Dee.
First AMW needs to be allowed to stand. The NEC seem to have accepted that will happen. There is a letter from NEC to AMW on her website. But UKIPs constitution says only members up to June 23 may vote. This is the stumbling block to an AMW win. She needs to win over the longer standing members who may prefer someone less radical. I have been a member of UKIP for 3 months and my feeling from branch meetings is that many of members are cautious and not radical.
My position is the nation needs AMW to continue her political career. The role of the non-leaders is to follow when the leader emerges. If AMW does not win then she may give up on UKIP and go in a different direction – and I will follow.
I will also be staying in UKIP until I get kicked out for having unacceptable views.
Hi again Maximus – have you considered asking, if necessary under the banner of fair play, for AMW to be invited to speak at your branch. You will know without even having to ask, what the general feeling is! She has a way of persuading people when they see and hear her – many might be swayed by the Etheridge bullsh1t at the moment because they only read papers like the Telegraph!!!
Good idea Dee. No hadn’t thought of that.
In case people are wondering why I’ve not replied, I’ve tried to post a full response to you, several times now but technology somewhere is blocking me. So, I’ll try to answer in brief. To infer without ensuring an email exchange had fully run its course that I relied on only one source for my figures is what’s ‘preposterous’ if that’s an appropriate word to be using in a debate among members of the same party.
In short, I absolutely stand by the figures in my article.
Arguing about exactly ‘when’ is a red herring esp. when 40 years is only 1.9% of 2040 anyway. If all politicians’ figures were 98% accurate we’d probably be in a far better place and they in better standing.
Furthermore, most pragmatic people prepare for the worst while hoping for the best so as not to be caught out if the worst transpires.
On such basis there’s no time to be lost.
The first step is to educate the population that there is a problem and that Sharia should not continue to be dismissed as irrelevant to them because they’re not Muslim. But, such a message has to be in the context of solutions to a raft of policies which the majority of voters currently do consider essential to their everyday lives or proclamations, no matter how right, on the Sharia issue will fall on deaf ears.
Flyer I also agree with this well-written article and incidentally I think the title is brilliant. I don’t see anything wrong with different people saying much the same thing in different ways. To you and I David is stating the blindingly obvious. A business advertises its wares through adverts. Advertising works. Advertising involves saying exactly the same thing over and over again. Businesses also use PR (public relations) because a written article like this one has much higher credibility than an advert does. (People know an advert is biased). But adverts are much more effective because of the repetition. However, UKIP cannot afford adverts on anything like the scale that would be effective. So here we are with talk, talk, talk. Different people repeating the message in different ways. Not ideal but it’s the best weapon we’ve got. But if someone has a better idea, lets hear it!
Worth reading – on Amazon and free on kindle…
“2030: your children’s future in Islamic Britain” by David Vincent and
“The Auto- genocides: Europe’s Immigration Armageddon” by Gavin Cooke.
There is some overlap between the books, the first one having been published in 2015, the second in 2017.
Both contain many facts and figures on immigration etc the government would rather you did not know…and why they lie and blame the crisis in social care and the NHS on the elderly…
if you set up a special unit a la Blair and Brown to bring in 5.5 million mainly illiterate immigrants, it’s obviously going to cause huge problems in the future…
Live in our country, live by our rules must be the first rule for any intending immigrant, whatever their reason for coming. Had that rule been applied rigorously then all that stems from Sharia would have been prevented.
Surely our existing laws would have been enough in the past had they not been used against us by the authorities? Now Islam needs to be proscribed and any who refuse to reject it must be encouraged to leave.
Another evil which should be outlawed is marriage between first cousins. In the past it was not a huge problem in the UK because most people realised it was a bad idea. However it is becoming a serious problem now. I doubt that it will be banned because it would damage “community relations”, despite the harm it causes.
Marriage between first cousins is specifically allowed within the Koran (in the same verse allowing sex slavery). Muslims would prefer to believe an ignorant 7th century text, rather than modern knowledge of genetics.
“O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses – whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, – in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Koran 33:50
http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/33-50.html
Offspring of Consanguineous unions
Please see the US National Library of Medicine (National Institutes of Health) on this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419292/
First cousins have an Inbreeding Index of 6.25% which is quite dangerous. Double-first cousins (as is not infrequently the case here) has it at 12.5%, exactly as bad as Uncle-Niece…
When this continues generation after generation, and as our own overburdened NHS has found out, the results are almost guaranteed to suffer from:
Mental retardation or learning disabilities
Birth defects
Congenital anomalies
Early hearing impairment
Early vision impairment
Developmental delay
Failure to thrive
Inherited blood disorder
Unexplained neonatal or infant death
Epilepsy
Other undiagnosed severe condition
For these reasons more than any concerned with morality, such unions are illegal in much of the USA and some other countries. See the diagrams at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
This is a well researched article. We have been betrayed by all three main parties:
– Labour introduced Sharia councils in 2008.
– Conservative / Lib Dem coalition did not abolish them, but added Sharia finance.
After the attack in Borough Market Theresa May said she sees Islam as being compatible with democracy and human rights.
I am puzzled – clearly they are lying to us. Questions: why do they do it? Who do they think they are fooling? How do they think they can get away with it?
Hugo –
“I am puzzled – clearly they are lying to us. Questions: why do they do it? Who do they think they are fooling? How do they think they can get away with it?”
This is an important question and I’ve posted about this elsewhere. They think they can get away with it and are still full of confidence, because quite clearly they have an end-game.
This end-game will be a nightmare for us and involve our complete subjugation, how else could they expect to get away with such blatant treason.
However, politicians also have children and grandchildren. Do they not care about their future? Or do they think that they can escape to some distant island? There will be nowhere to run away to. We must make a stand where we are, or else submit.
The end game suits the globalists otherwise it would not have been encouraged.
The end game, whatever it is, will not be in the interests of the children & grandchildren of most of the current MPs and mainstream party members and members of media etc.
Would guess they do not have deep commitment to current policy. I consider information and facts and evidence and honest open debate is capable of changing opinion in the nation.
If UKIP started to threaten an electoral breakthrough then the mainstream parties would change policy to try to prevent this.
But it would need constant pressure over years/decades to achieve any significant change.
At moment UKIP is the answer. Firstly win over enough voters to enable us to apply sufficient pressure to change policy.
Hugo. Interesting questions. A few reasons come to mind. Career politicians play it safe – 1 issue at a time using positive spin. Some will have formed opinion Islam is RoP from numerous meetings with moderates. They reckon the public take little interest in politics between elections – that is my experience. From experience they know they can get away with most things including starting wars such as Iraq. Most voters think they are tackling the difficult challenges facing the nation as best they can – that is how I used to think. The voters do not hold them to account. They just say & do what will bring electoral success. They reflect the zeitgeist which means do not talk about or address existential issues in the interest of short term community cohesiveness. Some will be useful idiots who not aware of the bigger picture. Some have lost their patriotism.
I would guess most MPs were patriotic at school and the process of career advancement has gradually shifted their values.
AMW summed it all up by saying we need to shift our attention to dealing with the mainstream parties – they need replacing – targetting labour constituencies first with UKIP becoming the main opposition to the Tories – and then defeating the Tories.
Do not figure our leading politicians out – just replace them. AMW asked for others to stand for office. Those who courageous enough to lead the nation into tackling the issues that most important.
I support that plan.
We must give our support to AMW. I have done so with a donation, and urge everyone to do so too:
http://forbritain.uk/
I believe the answer is more complex. Mass muslim immgration started in the late 1990s to all countries in the Western world. Prior to this, in 1992, the UN created Agenda 21, calling for, among other things, a “more sustainable population” in developing countries.
The biggest obstacles to achieving that are: (a) the Roman Catholic Church; (b) the lack of an overreaching world government to achieve it.
It is clear to me that to achieve global governance and control over an ever-expanding world population, the objectives are:
1) replace the nationalistic populations of the Western World with a homogeneous culture that not only welcomes world government, but demands it.
2) replace the Roman Catholic religion in developing countries with one that is open to contraception. Other Christian religions and Judaism being collateral casualties.
Tony Blair opened the floodgates here on the fatuous banner of “rubbing the nose of the right in diversity”, except he concentrated solely on a monoculture that rejects diversity, which proves that lie.
Merkel and Italy bilaterally opened the whole of Europe to muslims from the M.E. and Africa and demanded that, despite their actions having no mandate from the people, all other EU countries MUST “take a share”. There is no logic to this other than the intention to form a global government initially as a global Caliphate.
Only a sub-culture based on collectivism – cultural Marxism – could take this repugnant actions. We KNOW that the philosophy of Islamic-Marxism exists. It was Soviet funding to sympathetic Islamo-Marxists who created the Iranian Revolution, and Iran would be an Islam-Marxist state now, if Khomeini had not been such a revered hard line fundamentalist who had them all liquidated (as per the French Revolution).
We cannot be complacent because we have voted for Brexit; the current PM as Home Secretary did absolutely nothing to stem their influx, and almost certainly will not do so now, even if we leave the EU, since the immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh have nothing to do with the EU. The fact that she wholeheartedly embraced the Paris Climate Treaty, with its global governance objectives SHOWS that she is part of “the plan”.
The ECHR will continue to insist that relatives, even unto the ‘n’th generation, will have the “right” to rejoin family members here, and I’m certain that the Marxists in the Tory party will cling on to the ECHR even if we leave the EU for that very purpose.
This is why we MUST rebuild as another party that is NOT frightened to campaign on the above issues, and for that we MUST have AMW as leader.
> the current PM as Home Secretary did absolutely nothing
> to stem their influx,
In GE2017 I stood against her long-standing Immigration (and/or Security) Minister while she was in the Home Office. My friend Gerard Batten MEP stood against her. So, I computed the key figure – GROSS IMMIGRATION into the UK during 2010-16. It is quite hard to calculate and if you try to do it from the published ONS data you will see why. It is a shocking 3.5-3.6 million counting only official immigration. This doesn’t include refugees, “”refugees”” and it doesn’t include illegals, visa-overstayers, etc.
An absolute outrage.
Another appropriate measure of the crisis is got by adding Gross Immigration and Gross Emigration (but if the same person is both in and out, count it as a zero). Think about why… comers and leavers often have little in common.
> we MUST have AMW as leader.
While I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you, Brian, I can’t see how your concluson follows from what’s before. Are you implying other Leadership candidates aren’t Immigration-Aware? 8-!
Freddy, they are aware, but the point about Anne is that she doesn’t crumble under sustained media pressure, has all the facts at her fingertips and doesn’t give mixed messages. Gerard Batten silenced Jo Coburn by being truthful about his mohammedanism article, whereas Nuttall said, when questioned, that Gerard didn’t speak for the Party. He couldn’t hack it. That’s why it’s so crucial to have Anne as Leader – I support her totally although I feel terrible because I really admire John Rees-Evans – he’s a great and sincere man and a true Patriot – I hope they work together whatever happens – but I just don’t think he can get the facts across as crisply and clearly as Anne.
> Questions:
Answers:
> why do they do it?
Because they can. Many in the higher echelons of politics are sociopaths (if not psychopaths). In school in civics class, I was taught about systems that should mean the best get to make the decisions. At home, in contrast, criticism of what we now call “the political class” was extremely scathing, generally along the lines of “criminals and idiots”.
> Who do they think they are fooling?
That majority of “We, the people” whom we term the sheeple.
> How do they think they can get away with it?
When’s the last time the ravens had a peck of anything tasty on a spike? If there’s no consequences for crime, crime will only increase.
“Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres” – Candide, by Voltaire
If I had to choose only one (such a shame) I guess it would have to be Blair, but there are many others, and not all of them Labour.
It has been argued back and forth on this site that people will not vote for UKIP if its policies are anodyne variants of those of the other parties nor will they vote for an ‘extremist’ one topic party.
I agree with those who vere towards the radical approach. However you sugarcoat the pill there will be those who will balk at the bitter after-taste but that can’t be helped. The original UKIP which fought and won the Referendum was not deterred by bullying and opposition because conviction was backed by facts and its motivation lay in the good of the country. I see no difference now with the subject of this article.
I saw a clip of Jacob Rees-Mogg receiving much applause on QT for his views on scrapping HS2 and foreign aid being limited to emergency funding; both I believe, were included in the UKIP manifesto. The public recognises common sense when it sees it.
It is common sense surely that prosecution and sound punishment are delivered uniformly to all transgressors, whoever they are. It is well known however that this not the case. Since all should be treated equally under the law it is apparent that the police and judiciary under and including our governments are therefore breaking our own laws in allowing Sharia courts to exist.
Surely no self-respecting party should shy away from attempting to redress this almighty wrong for starters and such a pledge could be inserted neatly amongst the other common sense policies that seem to be popular when presented to the general public.
Any opposition to the proscription of Sharia courts can be shot down by the facts. They have no foundation in English Law; their practice is to advocate inequality of rights and freedoms and acts of violence against women; any supporter risks criminality ipso facto.
Only ‘Ban the Burka’ and ‘Stop FGM’ was raised by the national UKIP campaign at the GE – not even half the issue.
Nobody else in UKIP has said recently how Sharia law could be imposed in the UK – only how bad it is. Again not even half the issue.
How bad Sharia Law is, is irrelevant to the every day lives of the non-Muslim UK population unless they realise that in a generation or so they could find themselves living under it if in the meantime policies aren’t put in place to prevent the otherwise inevitable.
“To fully assess whether the imposition of sharia law would be a problem or not…”
Or not?? The ‘or not’ is redundant! The clue is in your witty title ‘How do you solve a problem like sharia?’ sharia IS a problem, as big a global problem as islam and the koran and the befuddled but dangerous muslims who believe in it – not just for the UK but for every advanced country. All but the canniest, such as Hungary and Japan, have allowed a critical mass of muslims to emigrate to their free country, build mosques, have massive families, and become involved in the political system or threaten terror. That the UK is still allowing muslim migrants to flood in, on top of the rapidly growing population we already suffer from, shows how stupid, ignorant and careless successive goverments have been and still are.
We desperately NEED Anne Marie Waters as our next leader. She is aware of all the dangers that PC mainstream politicos prefer to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to. One of her policies is to unify and strengthen all the different components of the British Constitution. Her stated aim is to prevent the subversion and self-destruction of democracy, something that is a future threat in swathes of the country where ghettoes already exist and a huge majority of muslims could vote for representatives who promised sharia law and islamic rule.
If any future government were as thick and cowardly as our recent governments have been, they wouldn’t do a thing about it and our beloved country would become a balkanised hell-hole. The ‘free parts’ would be in constant fear of attacks by aliens who hadn’t even had the bother of invading our shores – no, the half-wits who call themselves ‘leaders’ had politely opened the gates to them for the last 100 years.
Some people think that the people of Troy were idiots for taking the wooden horse into their besieged city, but they were intellectual giants compared to us.
If Anne Marie becomes leader, she can be to the Problem of islam what Nigel Farage was to the Problem of the EU: alert voters to the iniquities of a system that wants to steal our country and end our freedom, spread and repeat the message relentlessly, speak, write, broadcast her policies to strengthen British Law, Culture, and Democracy so that they cannot be defeated by those who, either from religious and/or ideological conviction, want to take over what is our way of life and replace it with theirs. The growing pressure of concern would force the government to take the necessary steps. We got the EU Referendum and we need another referendum on this urgent matter.
If nothing is done to save Britain, at the age of 93 in 2040, I will be glad to be at the end of my life, and sorry not to have died sooner.
Your paragraph below says all,
That the UK is still allowing muslim migrants to flood in, on top of the rapidly growing population we already suffer from, shows how stupid, ignorant and careless successive goverments have been and still are.
Except = that they are certainly not Stupid, Ignorant and Careless.
They know full well what they are doing.
It is deliberate policy to destroy Britain.
Every one of them is a traitor to the British People and they should all hang.
> they should all hang
Isn’t hanging rather quick?
Freddy I agree hanging is far too quick and clinical for these damn traitors.I know it might seem rather harsh,but I would propose that they are all publically flogged,spend three days in the stocks,where members of the public could vent their anger,by pelting them with rotten fruit,and then they should all be hung,drawn and quartered.
What do you think? do you think I have shown too much mercy?
We have a proud maritime tradition.
However, research shows that keelhauling doesn’t merit the reputation it has gained.
Too slow, there was drowning; too fast, and the barnacles were skimmed over.
Just saying.
Very well said, Panmelia. To my mind, one of the best hopes we have is a strengthened constitution, along with alerting people to what Sharia law actually is.
Dear Panmelia,may I congratulate you again on writing such an excellent comment,
as usual you really are in top form.I would just like to add this great quote (which I have used for many years now),from the Roman Tulius Cicero:A NATION CAN SURVIVE ITS FOOLS,EVEN THE AMBITIOUS,BUT ITCANNOT SURVIVE TREASON FROM WITHIN.AN ENEMY AT THE GATES IS LESS FORMIDABLE.
Panmelia thank you for your support for Anne Marie Waters,isn’t she wonderful.
Yes, Geoff, Anne Marie is a wonderful woman who has chosen the difficult path of truthful politics instead of the easy path of a conventional legal career.
I have met Anne Marie and have no doubt of her courage and sincerity.
Your quotation from Cicero is as true today as it was in his own time. In the Second World War, Churchill did not tolerate traitors and neither should we.
You’ve left the answer till last, David! “UKIP needs a comprehensive set of imaginative and practical solutions to everyday issues upon which the majority of the electorate vote.”
Will some posters on here now at last come to see that means the economy and a dose of nationalism in its management; dropping more grammars; and stopping denial of AGW.
If you don’t let the Party move forward on these lines there is no hope for our country.
As much as I agree with this article, its all been said before.
The demographic projections are available and the effects of mass Muslim Hijrah are well known, yet still our politicians refuse to acknowledge the problem.
Talk, talk and more talk: talking, it’s becoming ever more obvious, will not get us our country back.
Flyer, I understand your frustration, but short of taking up arms or engaging in massive civil disobedience, what else can we do but talk? – talk to our friends, relatives, work-colleagues, associates? Spread the word, so that more and more people become aware and begin talking about it too.
Even if the warnings are dismissed as far-fetched or scaremongering, a seed is planted in the minds of people who will then take extra notice of the next affront to our safety, security, freedom, democracy, culture and way of life. Eventually, they too will begin to see the truth that politicians ignore or try to hide from us. This is how the anti-EU reservations of the populace built up over years and resulted in the great upsurge of conviction that produced the Leave vote.
Right now, I think the writers and readers of ukipdaily are in the vanguard of a movement that will – must – filter through the national consciousness and produce political results. As in the struggle over Brexit, we have powerful enemies who will lie, accuse, abuse and scream blue murder, but we have to try our very best to save our country from defeat and subjugation. Our forebears throughout history have had to fight for freedom, and now it’s our turn.
That is a rather fatuous comment. Do you imply that everyone who needs to get the message has read it by now? A rather small circle, don’t you think? What about new members, people who have not been here before? Our politicians will ALWAYS refuse to acknowledge the problem – it is worldwide and most obviously planned by world “leaders” who ALL belong to the Bilderberg group.
Hence, we need to CHANGE our politicians. That is the POINT of UKIP. Not to be an agitprop group, but a government one day, hopefully. Think how long it took Labour to get a working majority – 40 years competing against two other parties. We now have at least 5 other parties. They proved that it IS possible if you reach the right constituents. In their case, it was the working class. In ours, it is the disenfranchised generation who do NOT want to see a world under the jackboot of Islamo-Marxist fascism.
There is clearly a global conspiracy going on – see my reasoning further up (down?) . Not all conspiracies are theories, as can easily be seen in history. The French and Russian revolutions, the Nazi putsch, all started off as conspiracies. We are currently undergoing a global cultural Marxist cold revolution, using Muslims as their means of population replacement.
I did not mean the only people talking about this are on ukipdaily: there are many other sites on social media with the same message, including the wonderful Paul Watson and Rebel Media. To be in ‘the vanguard’ does not mean alone; it means ahead of the majority.
‘Change our politicians’? That is a rather fatuous comment, isn’t it? We managed to get the referendum without one single seat in the HoC. The way to ‘change’ politicians is to put unrelenting pressure on them until they begin to see the point of doing something that the people clamour for. I doubt that UKIP will get any seats under the FPTP system. Our best chance so far was in 2015 and we got zero. Without electoral reform, or a reformed party under a galvanising leader, UKIP has Everest to climb.
Rather than worry about a global conspiracy, let’s concentrate on our own country where the two major issues are achieving a proper Brexit so we can make our own laws; and using those laws to control islam and reduce the muslim population. Other countries must work their own destinies out, but we could hope to set a good example of resistance to islamo-marxist fascism.