by Chauncey Tinker – 22 Sep 2017
Almost unmentioned by the mainstream media (MSM), Anne Marie Waters (AMW) appears to be about to take over the UK Independence Party (UKIP). In my view this will be a seismic event in UK politics if it comes to pass, and I believe the longer term consequences will be very good for the UK and possibly even further afield in Europe. Many within UKIP are terrified that her leadership will destroy the party, and indeed it will probably cause quite a bit of turbulence in the short term, especially since many UKIP MEPs have threatened to quit the party if she wins. Even Nigel Farage has said apparently that if she wins “UKIP is finished”:
“if UKIP goes down the route of being a party that is anti the religion of Islam, then frankly it’s finished”.
After the last dismal election result it is difficult to see how things could get much worse for this party, which perhaps surprisingly seems to have lost its way considerably following the successful EU referendum result. However I take a very different view from the one expressed by Mr. Farage, I believe this will be the beginning of a new and hugely important chapter not just for this party but also for the country as a whole.
AMW has faced a degradation ceremony from the mainstream media. She has been called “far-right” by the MSM which is usually the kiss of death from the all-powerful MSM. However those of us who want an end to the mass immigration that is transforming this country rapidly beyond recognition are frankly past caring what the extremely biased MSM thinks about anything. Even members of UKIP have opposed her on these sort of grounds (not least Mr. Farage as I mentioned already), although I suspect that this is more because they are terrified of the MSM than because they particularly disagree with what she is saying.
She has also been called a “socialist” by those on the right who oppose her – I will examine this claim here in a moment. First however, we can’t talk about this candidate without talking about Islam. AMW has long been campaigning against Islam, she runs a website called Sharia Watch. The rise of Islam in our society is clearly a very large motivating factor behind her campaign.
Debate about Islam is being effectively suppressed, critics of Islam are routinely vilified and often simply refused a platform by our current mainstream media. Academia is mostly uncritical of the religion or actively encourages it. Our current established elite are very relaxed about the religion, and they are in general doing their utmost to try to keep the truth about this religion a secret from the public. Of course it is an open secret, because there are many online resources that people can use to discover the truth, but most people don’t have the time or the inclination to study the religion in sufficient depth to properly understand it.
Most people’s impression of the religion comes from the mainstream media and our politicians. After every terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in the West our leaders have responded by claiming “It’s Nothing To Do With Islam“. They are lying to the public. The truth about Islam is that it (follow each link to learn more about each subject):
What fools (or cowards) we are, the non-Muslims of the world, to ignore these facts and allow the religion to take over our societies. It is the most gigantic folly imaginable.
In saying these things I am simply stating undeniable facts about the religion, nothing more than that. I am not calling for any harm to come to the many Muslims in our country, and I don’t wish for harm to come to them as long as they abide by our laws and do not attack us. Most of them ARE behaving peacefully and abiding by our laws. However this fact does not alter the above realities about what their religion SAYS.
Furthermore this year there have been a whole string of murderous attacks by followers of this religion in the West, an increase in frequency in an already horrendous trend. Why is it acceptable that Islam incites violence against us? It should not be acceptable, and I do not find it acceptable. Why does Islam get a free pass to incite violence against us? To add insult to injury, people have been arrested and convicted for much lesser “crimes” than this recently (of mere supposedly OFFENSIVE speech) when they merely criticize the behaviour of Muslims. We are already becoming second class citizens in our own country, and so far Muslims are less than 5% of the population. We are being ruled by fear.
(Please note the views above are my own views, I am not trying to speak for AMW here).
I oppose Islam, and I have opposed it ever since I first began to learn the truth about it. I believe the West needs to have a big and honest conversation about this religion because many parts of the West are on track to becoming Islamic majority countries in the not too distant future. When that occurs, and even before then, our legal systems are going to come under immense pressure to adapt to the demands of Islam – even now the West is increasingly enacting de facto Islamic blasphemy law and Sharia law courts are quietly appearing in particular areas. Ordinary people need to understand what a seismic change Islam will bring to our way of life, and they must be allowed to object to it through the ballot box. Before they can object meaningfully however the facts must be laid before them. We need to have that debate.
I have for a long time been in two minds whether it is wise for politicians to openly oppose Islam. One argument is that it would be undiplomatic for a party leader (even more so perhaps a Prime Minister) to openly be opposed to the religion. It could even be a huge vote loser, but I’ll come back to this question in a moment. However if we cannot even allow a politician who is opposed to Islam to stand in a leadership election, especially when she clearly has so much support among the ordinary members of her party, then we are cowards cowering before this very threatening belief system. The UK today is not an Islamic country, it is a country with secular law, secular politics (apart from the bishops in the House of Lords), and a Christian heritage. Why should we not be led by a leader who opposes Islam, especially considering the above facts that I put before you in the previous section?
One compelling argument for encouraging an outspoken opponent of the religion to lead a UK political party is that it may in fact be the only route to forcing the debate out into the open. Since the MSM and academia have almost completely shut out debate of the religion there may be no other route available. Our schools are even now brainwashing the next generation to believe the religion is peaceful, softening them up for later submission.
The BBC is also brainwashing the population in preparation for submission – for example see the disgraceful series “The Life of Muhammed” presented by Rageh Omar. Our current MPs are not inclined to object strongly enough to the BBC to bring about its privatization (in fact I suspect very few current MPs really wish for that), only UKIP sees the problems with this organization. As long as the BBC is so powerful in the Westminster/MSM bubble there is little hope for a reasonable public discourse about many subjects – immigration and the EU as well, not just Islam.
Almost invariably in debates about Islam, the point is made that “most Muslims” are not attacking us, and the argument is made that therefore Islam per se is not “the problem”. Is Islam “the” problem right now? No, the rise of Islam in the West is a SYMPTOM of our sick Western society. However Islam is also very much a problem in its own right that must be opposed (for the reasons I gave above). It is immoral and seditious against our legal system and democracy and worse once people join the religion the threat of death hangs over them if they later change their mind and try to leave it.
Crucially there will not be a better time in the future to have this debate. The debate is very literally becoming more lethally dangerous with every single passing day. It does not matter that the vast majority of Muslims will probably not attack us for criticizing the religion. Look at how vulnerable the Hebdo cartoonists were – it only took two heavily armed terrorists to kill them all, in a country that is home to around 5 million Muslims. Nobody in the intelligence services knew which particular two Muslims were going to strike until it was too late (at least as far as we know nobody knew).
Individuals who go about their ordinary daily lives may be more likely to be run over by a bus than to be attacked by terrorists, but those public figures who speak out openly against the religion (such as AMW) are at very grave risk every single minute of every single day. Every time they go to sleep at night they do so knowing that they may be killed in their beds as they sleep, just as Asma bint Marwan the poetess was murdered with her children sleeping around her by one of Mohammed’s followers (according to the Islamic story anyway), with Mohammed’s blessing. Islam is therefore able to influence our political system in very significant ways even though Muslims are only around 5% of the UK population today, simply by the fear that it invokes.
Remember – the story of Mohammed’s life is revered as a “most beautiful example” which Muslims are supposed to follow according to Koran 33:21. So to summarize this critical point, do you really think this conversation is going to be any easier a few years from now when Muslims have become 10, 20, 30 percent of the population? We owe it to future generations to have this conversation NOW, otherwise we should expect that much blood will be spilled when the conversation inevitably begins in earnest at a later time (as I am convinced it will).
Our cowardice today will either cost many lives in the future or it will cost us our very free and democratic way of life. In AMW’s own words in an interview with Gad Saad:
There is no middle ground, you cannot have a society where you have death for blasphemy AND freedom of religion, its one or the other.
You have to admit that fact and decide which one its going to be.
I don’t see any easy answer for this, someone is going to have to lose.
Also in that interview with Gad Saad (at around 54 minutes in), AMW says this:
AMW: My contempt for the left is only possible for someone who was once a part of it.
AMW: I do have contempt for the left
GS: You were a leftist, then you grew up.
You can see the whole interview here if you have time (1 hour long), I recommend it:
My Chat with Anne Marie Waters, Director of Sharia Watch UK (THE SAAD TRUTH_105)
Here is another critical point that I have gleaned from listening to AMW. She first became aware of the horrors of Sharia law, FGM and honour killings at university through her friendship with a Muslim female student there. Learning about these things has eventually led AMW to reject her left wing ideas because she has come to see the connection between left wing policies and attitudes which try to compromise with the Islamic religion. As you just saw she has come to the correct understanding that there simply cannot be any compromise with a religion that calls for the murder of those who criticize it or try to leave it.
This is not just a particular “strain” of Islamic culture we are talking about here, its in the very core texts of Islam – the Koran and the Hadiths, these are the instructions that are supposed to come direct from Mohammed himself. According to the story, Mohammed established his religion with violent offensive warfare and by having his critics and opponents killed. This life as it is described was not the most beautiful example of a life ever lived, unless you admire the lives of violent dictators. This example of a life is fundamentally at odds with our way of life.
Time and time again now I have come across former left wingers who have moved to the right as a result of learning the truth about the Islamic religion. Knowledge of Islam is the “red pill” if you like, that produces a Damascene conversion in those who take one. You can argue endlessly with left wingers about the long term problems created by well-meaning welfare programs but they will usually fail to change their views on hearing these arguments however hard you try.
In her manifesto she makes it clear that she now understands the importance of welfare reform. I have followed politics closely in recent years and I have never once heard Theresa May speak about the need for welfare reform.
Some of the other smaller points in the manifesto do point towards government interference for example in the housing market, and I would tend to argue strongly against this. If we get control of immigration and stop allowing millions more immigrants into the country every decade there will soon start to be more room in housing anyway. Of course this could have knock-on effects for our Ponzi economy, but this is a large subject that would need a separate discussion.
She supports the NHS (she has worked in the NHS apparently) and wants to reduce waste but then who in politics right now does not support it and want to reduce waste? We can argue against yet another attempt to “reform” the NHS but we are arguing against every politician at Westminster when we do – they all support the NHS and think they can micro-manage it (all recent attempts have led simply to discontent among NHS staff as far as I can make out). Again this is a subject that would need a separate discussion.
She supports small businesses and also talks about deregulation which I think is critically necessary for small businesses to start to flourish again. These are not the ideas of a raving socialist.
On the strength of this manifesto overall I would say that she is already to the right of Theresa May on most issues and probably at least as right wing as almost any politician at Westminster currently. Nobody at all at Westminster is talking about welfare reform right now to my knowledge. Ignore the MSM “far-right” slur, it doesn’t mean anything at all. Most true racists are fairly middle of the road or even left wing in reality, they are not “far-right” on these issues.
See the full manifesto here:
AMW is doing a very brave thing, she is saying the things that many of us think but dare not say in public. These concerns are shared (although perhaps often in a vaguer form) by many ordinary members of the public who dare not speak out either and they usually don’t get the opportunity in any case. According to one survey a majority of Europeans want an end to ALL immigration from Muslim majority countries, but we rarely hear their voices on the subject. Instead we hear only vilification of those brave few in public life who dare speak out.
Instead of “finishing UKIP” I really believe that there will be a surge of support for the party because concern about the rise of Islam is widespread and significant. The concern would grow stronger still if the truth about the religion was forced into the public discourse. If she succeeds in gathering support even the pro-Islamic MSM will struggle to avoid hosting more prime-time debates on the subject.
Will Muslims vote for her? Probably not in any significant numbers, and that is quite a few votes there. Quite a number of non-Muslims may be horrified and frightened by what she is saying about Islam, perhaps. However conviction politicians often win support from surprising quarters, and she is certainly a conviction politician. Even many of those who disagree with what she is saying will feel admiration (however secretly) for her bravery in speaking out. No selfish cynical career politician would attempt to run on such a dangerous platform as this.
To those of you out there who are hoping for a libertarian revolution you need to get real. Politics is the art of the possible, wishful thinking will get you nowhere. A candidate who simultaneously tried to undo all the bad ideas of the last century would fail at the ballot box, and failure at the ballot box means either a drift towards state default (via perhaps a Corbyn govt.), chaos and possibly much worse, or else eventual submission to a backward, barbaric, supremacist belief system that will hold humanity back for centuries. What would emerge from that chaos no-one knows, the only thing that would be predictable about it is that it would be violent and unpredictable. Look to what is going on in Venezuela if you want some idea what it would be like – this is the model of a society that Jeremy Corbyn wants to emulate, as evidenced by his frequent praises of the current regime there.
Even if AMW’s chances of leading UKIP to success at a general election seem slim today, I believe that her candidacy at the very least will shake up the establishment and force an honest debate out into the open. This will have the great effect of exposing the bias of the MSM for all to see.
Of course Nigel Farage deserves huge praise for his role in getting the Brexit ball rolling in the first place. However even under Mr. Farage’s leadership UKIP only ever won a single seat (something Nigel himself never accomplished). As I mentioned already, UKIP also performed dismally in the last election. The impact on the election of MEPs is a different matter of course, but since we are leaving the EU in any case it hardly matters surely now? Those MEPs currently in UKIP may quit the party but they will surely not abandon the Brexit project just because AMW gains control of the party?
AMW wants to take us in the right direction (in both senses), and having taken the “red pill” herself she wants to hand out those “red pills” to many more so that they too can take them and become “awake”. I hereby therefore give my full and heart-felt support to her campaign, with those small objections that I made above.
Mohammed and Aisha - Answering the Apologists
What do you think? Is it time to make a stand? Please leave a comment below.