Batang Lalake

 I do not normally post such content on this blog, and therefore I will only leave it visible for a limited time. But need leads to necessity.

Here is an interesting piece, one I’ll share, as it reflects many of the concerns I have about the direction our world is currently heading.

A Document of Clarity and Concern of a Contemporary Security Perspective

The formal commencement of the two World Wars marked definitive moments in British history, characterised by clear governmental statements and public mobilisation.

WW1
On 4 August 1914, the British Foreign Office announced that a state of war existed with Germany from 11:00 PM. The public was informed through extra editions of newspapers, which were rushed onto the streets with unambiguous headlines such as "WAR DECLARED." Newsboys then disseminated this news throughout London and other major cities.

WW2
A more modern announcement occurred on 3 September 1939. At 11:15 AM, the BBC interrupted its scheduled programming to broadcast a live statement from Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street. He explained that a final ultimatum had been delivered to Germany, demanding the withdrawal of its troops from Poland. His concluding words, "I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany," left no room for doubt. In both instances, the British government identified a direct and immediate threat to national sovereignty and took decisive, public action to defend the state and its people.

A Contemporary Analysis of Threat

WW3
A significant perspective now posits that the United Kingdom is engaged in a protracted, non-conventional conflict, which some commentators term a third world war. This viewpoint argues that, unlike historical precedents, the current government is not acting to defend the populace but is, through a series of legislative and administrative measures, inadvertently or deliberately facilitating the threat. This threat is identified as the advancing influence of Global Islamist ideology.

Proponents of this view base their argument on several key premises, beginning with demographic change. Current Office for National Statistics figures place the total UK population as approximately 67.7 million.

The most robust available estimates, from the Pew Research Centre and Dr Peter William Walsh at the University of Oxford's Migration Observatory, suggest the Muslim population, including both legally resident and undocumented individuals, is approximately 4.8 million, or 7.15 per cent of the total.

To contextualise this figure, it is significantly larger than the population of Greater Manchester (2.8 million) and only slightly less than the entire population of Scotland (5.4 million).

The argument, however, contends that overall numbers are only one part of the analysis. This demographic presence is characterised as the largest "army" ever mobilised against the nation, albeit an ideological one.

It is suggests that while the majority may be (currently) passive, a critical element consists of what might be termed the "ruling Islamists" or their "controlling elite." This segment is seen as having achieved positions of authority within British politics and government, from where they can influence law and policy.

It is noted that while Muslims constitute 1.6 per cent of national and local government officials, a figure which reflects their overall population share, the critical issue is asserted to be the specific positions of power they hold.

The ideological driver of this perceived threat is identified as Islamic doctrines such as Dar al-Harb, which is interpreted as a religious imperative to bring non-Islamic lands under Islamic rule, and Taqiyya, a concept of religious dissimulation.

From this viewpoint, these doctrines create a fundamental incompatibility with British, and all Western secular democracies, and justify, for some, the use of political and administrative systems to advance their goals. Individuals in positions of authority are thus framed not as integrated citizens, but as activated "sleepers" or an assimilative force, akin to a collective, whose doctrine renders resistance futile.

The argument concludes with a projection of current trends.

It is suggested that if public unrest and disquiet are palpable at a 7.15 per cent population share, the situation will become unmanageable as this share grows through immigration and birth rates. Projections of the Muslim population reaching over 45 per cent in the coming decades are cited as a potential outcome without intervention.

The text lists several prominent political figures, including Lord Tariq Ahmad, Sadiq Khan, and the leaders of numerous local councils such as Tower Hamlets and Newham, as evidence of this established and growing influence.

This perspective ultimately asserts that this ideological conflict is already underway across Western nations, including Canada, the United States, the UK, Australia, and Europe, and is expanding southwards through Africa.

It concludes that only a fundamental awakening of Western leadership can defend against what it characterises as an existential threat that seeks to impose Sharia law within a controlling digital framework.

If Western Governments do not act NOW, the result is projected to be a Global Islamic State, with the entire human race imprisoned in a digital cage.

My take:

For those who don’t like to read academic-style reports, the gist of this is that the West is under systematic attack by Islamists. (WW3).
Islamic nation forerunners have already established themselves in positions of power within all Western governments. Muslim numbers are exponentially increasing in traditionally non-Muslim nations, and if Western governments do not take swift, decisive action now, the result will be that the world, under digital ID and Central Bank Digital Currency, will be governed and controlled by a global Islamic state.

Whether you agree or not, it is food for thought.