object, agile and wiki pioneer. founder, open climate initiative. ruby guy. pronouns: if you're talking to me, use 'you'; if you're talking about me, don't care
West Wick, UK
Joined March 2007
- Tweets62.1K
- Following3.8K
- Followers1.5K
- Likes119K
Pinned Tweet
One word - "Mary" - and the most important news in history has been communicated in its totality
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
🚨 NEW: “His presentation made me uncomfortable, but I quickly understood that saying so would not be acceptable. Colleagues applauded and celebrated him. You couldn’t simply ask: what on earth is he doing?”
A former Oxford postgraduate student writes for [Un]Captured about her experience of lecturer Matt Rattley - and why she feared speaking openly would damage her career.
She wasn’t taught by him, but saw him around the college regularly. She explains why the culture surrounding him affected her too.
Published anonymously, in her own words.
Link to read below 👇
Voice of experience.
🇵🇱🇺🇸 Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński WARNS Americans against voting Democrat in 2026
Looking into the camera, he says socialism means death, slavery, and the end of freedom, urging Americans not to repeat the 70 years of occupation Poland endured.
He also says equality under that system means equal hunger.
Poland lived it, while the DSA is still selling it.
Writer: Lucas
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
This our energy Minister talking to an energy expert. What an utter disgrace @mgshanks is.
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
‘Taxpayers foot £6.5m bill as trans breast removal surgeries soar’
Gift 🎁 article on NHS mastectomies for women who’ve been convinced they are men
telegraph.co.uk/gift/0fe3cac…
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
In 1830 HMS PRIMROSE captured Spanish Slaver Velos Passagera rescuing 555 Africans destined for slavery. PRIMROSE was part of the Royal Navy's West Africa Sqn tasked with anti-slavery duties.
Between 1808-60 the RN intercepted 1,600 slave ships, freeing over 150,000 Africans
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
Quite.
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who don’t know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britain’s greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britain’s deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
Roots. Discredited by real-world data.
The Club of Rome was founded in the late 1960s by a core of disenchanted scientists, rich industrialists and bureaucrats.
They were the embryo of today's familiar climate activism aims, blaming unchecked population growth, industrial expansion and resource consumption for an impending collapse of civilisation within a century.
Their 1972 report, The Limits to Growth, popularised the concept of finite planetary boundaries and the perceived necessity of global growth management. This same core ideology drives the supranational climate agenda today.
In 1951, the UN incorporated the World Meteorological Organization, and in 1988 it created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These twin agencies became the chief architects of an ongoing environmental crisis narrative. Both operate with explicit political mandates: providing governments with curated scientific rationale to justify top-down climate mandates.
The underlying aim was always to frame human development - driven by energy use and population - as an existential threat. While IPCC assessment reports themselves were often selectively edited, UN leadership routinely amplified only the most radical, worst-case projections, distilling complex data into slogans of 'global boiling' or a 'code red for humanity'.
The result has been a feedback loop of escalating rhetoric, artificial urgency and public hysteria - language not supported even by the underlying technical documents. Meanwhile, dissent was quietly neutralised; scientific careers were bypassed, funding diverted and academic tenure denied to those who questioned this orthodoxy.
The core scientific claim relies on the premise that human emissions - roughly 3 to 4% of the total annual carbon flux - are overwhelming a naturally stable cycle. Yet Earth has experienced multiple sustained warm periods throughout the current Holocene interglacial; temperatures were 1 to 2°C warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum 8,000 to 5,000 years ago.
The previous warm interglacial period, the Eemian, was 2°C warmer than today; African megafauna lived in the Thames Valley. CO₂ played no part.
Furthermore, satellite observations confirm the planet has greened dramatically since the 1980s, expanding leaf-area index by an area equivalent to twice the continental United States - primarily driven by CO₂ fertilisation (NASA 2016, 2019; Zhu et al, Chen et al).
While adding atmospheric CO₂ produces warming, it does so on a diminishing logarithmic scale. The critical debate, therefore, has never been basic physics, but rather the magnitude of warming, the balance of real-world harms, and whether the mandated policy remedies are worse than the disease.
After four decades of warning and trillions of dollars in subsidies, wind and solar still supply only about 6% of global primary energy, while dense hydrocarbon fuels generate 82% (Statistical Review of World Energy 2024).
Western economies have been rushed into rapid, capital-intensive energy transitions for which grid infrastructure was never designed, driving systemic price spikes and manufacturing off-shoring. Strategic dominance over supply chains has shifted, with China now manufacturing over 90% of the world’s solar panels and wind turbines.
Meanwhile, annual COP summits have evolved into the world’s most extravagant traveling public relations circus - generating an estimated 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ at COP26 alone from fleets of private jets and five-star accommodations - to broker sweeping pledges that developing nations have little capacity or intention to fulfill.
That the climate debate touches on legitimate environmental questions is to be expected. But the overarching policy response has been shaped from its genesis by the same impulse that birthed the Club of Rome: restrict energy use, limit economic growth, and dilute national sovereignty.
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who don’t know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britain’s greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britain’s deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
Leftist mainstream media outlets piled on this week to express outrage at my observation, during a speech in Grand Rapids for Mike Rogers, about the troubling dearth of scientific output from the world’s 22 Arab nations over the past five decades. These reporters — @fatimathefatima @AP, @Kanishka183 @Reuters, @rachel_roubein @washingtonpost, @baylisswagner @nytimes, @stevebenen @MSNOWNews — omitted critical context, presumably to bestow plausibility on their accusations that my statements were racist and Islamophobic.
However, my speech was not a critique of Arabs or Islam, but of Islamism (also known as “Islamofascism” or “Political Islam”), a toxic ideology conceived and promoted by the terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Let’s see which reporters take the time to read this post and then correct their stories.
Criticizing Islamism is neither Islamophobic nor racist. Islamism is a violent corruption of mainstream Islam that summons adherents back to the seventh-century ideal of bloody jihad, the homicidal and suicidal religious zealotry that propelled a motley cadre of desert nomads to conquer half the world. Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar — the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican and the highest authority in Sunni Islamic thought — has rejected Islamism as “false Islam” and a “perversion of the Islamic religion” and accused it of “barbaric crimes.”
Islamism is intensely anti-American, anti-Western, and hostile to modernity. It is explicitly contemptuous of democracy, constitutional government, capitalism, minority rights, gay rights, women’s rights, free speech, and virtually all personal freedoms. Its central aspiration is for a global caliphate ruled by a single theocratic despot with absolute power to impose sharia law that dictates every aspect of human conduct. The Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna, taught that the highest aspiration for a Muslim was martyrdom in the achievement of that goal; the purpose of every Islamic nation is to “perfect the industry of death” until world domination is accomplished.
I pointed out in my speech that the Muslim Brotherhood’s antipathy for modernity is a dramatic departure from Islam’s historical affinity for science and learning. During the Muslim Golden Age, spanning the eighth through the fifteenth centuries, Muslim leaders dignified Islam’s wealth and power by promoting a brilliant flowering of innovation and scholarship in science, mathematics, philosophy, art, literature, astronomy, pharmacology, psychology, engineering, architecture, medicine, and navigation that continues to enrich the world today. Arab leaders fostered an intellectual ferment unmatched by any other in human history. A long line of enlightened caliphs assembled—and abundantly rewarded—an unparalleled galaxy of jurists, scientists, physicians, philosophers, musicians, artists, poets, and wits. Muslim rulers elevated the role of reason and tolerance, cultivating a milieu of religious and intellectual freedom—where Jews and Christians also flourished—and encouraged sages of various faiths and ethnicities to collaborate and freely exchange ideas.
For five centuries, Arabic was the world’s most learned and literary tongue and the lingua franca of science and scholarship. Most mosques had libraries (Córdoba hosted 600!). Muslim princes in the tenth century often had more books in their personal collections than existed in all of Europe. Baghdad had 100 bookstores in AD 891. England would have to wait another 420 years until 1309 to see paper for the first time.
Islam’s second Golden Age during the Ottoman Empire (1299–1922) birthed a cosmopolitan and pluralistic civilization centered in Constantinople that yielded additional bonanzas in poetry, music, art, and a tsunami of scientific innovation from coffee to water pumps, steam engines, gears, surgical scalpels and clamps, the first smallpox vaccine, and the cannons that allowed the Ottomans to dominate Europe to the gates of Vienna.
In 1928, six years after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Muslim Brotherhood began to spread its dark strain of violent fundamentalism from Egypt to Palestine and across the Muslim world. Islamism’s contagious proliferation ended the dialogue between Islam and the intellectual classes and demoted the role of reason in Islamic life. The Muslim Brotherhood’s principal philosopher, Sayyid Qutb, was contemptuous toward public education in science, math, and philosophy, believing that the only source of truth is the Koran. For Qutb, the purpose of education was not to celebrate life, or to nourish the intellect, but to indoctrinate children in the art of war, the glorification of death, and a blind obedience to an autocratic caliph.
Qutb railed against reason, which he considered the seed of apostasy. He sought to silence the humanities and viewed science as a sinister displacement of religion. He derided pluralism, rationalism, innovation, and tolerance. In doing so, he deprived Islam of its modern potential and its own greatest inheritance: the confidence to learn from the world, preserve its wisdom, and surpass it.
In his obituary for Muslim culture, The Closing of the Muslim Mind (2010), Robert R. Reilly recognizes that Qutb’s outlook dooms his followers to inertia. A religion that values obedience over initiative, that seeks to obviate independent reason, is a religion of violence. Where there is no framework for rational mediation, all disputes must be settled by force.
It didn’t worry Qutb that discouraging education in physics, mathematics, medicine, or engineering would atrophy intellectual and economic development in the Muslim world. Qutb explained that Muslim countries were so far behind the West in the sciences and technology that there was no hope to catch up. Muslims, he preached, should do what they do best—study the Koran and embrace martyrdom as the path for achieving global dominion: “The Muslim community today is neither capable of nor required to present before mankind great genius in material inventions, which would make the world bow its head before its supremacy.”
Qutb’s diatribe against Muslims competing in science and technology was nothing less than civilizational malpractice—especially given that he wrote it in 1964. Had Japan, Singapore, or South Korea accepted Qutb’s logic in 1964, they would have opted out of modernity. Instead, they chose to accept the challenge of competition. Their decision to engage has yielded stunning achievements that transformed their nations into economic and technological superpowers and enriched all of humanity.
The anti-intellectualism of Islamism—the rejection of evidence and the scientific method, the hostility toward objectivity, the suppression of contrary information, the deification of dogma, the embrace of pseudoscience, the contempt for reason as the path for discerning objective truth, and Islamism’s association of science with immorality—has helped close off the Islamic mind. The staggering metrics of intellectual and scholastic enfeeblement in Muslim nations attest to Islamism’s systematic squandering of human capital including the creative potential among the world’s two billion Muslims.
Korea issued 260,000 patents in 2024, while nine Arab countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, issued fewer than 10,000 in total, with 8,000 of these coming from a single nation—Saudi Arabia—which has made herculean efforts in recent years to de-Islamize its society. Japan, which represents about 1.5% of the world’s population and is practically devoid of natural resources, granted 306,855 patents in 2024 alone. There are 127 million Japanese, compared to 500 million Arabs.
According to Hillel Ofek’s 2011 analysis, there were a mere nine scientists, engineers, and technicians per thousand citizens in Islamic nations. The global average was forty-one. Among the 1,800 universities in Muslim nations, only 312 housed scholars who had published articles in journals.
Muslims represent 26% of the world’s population, and Muslim countries control half the world’s crude oil resources and 40% of natural gas resources. And yet the 53 Muslim countries combined publish only 5% of the world’s scientific literature. Hillel Ofek points to a 1989 study showing that in a single year, the United States published 10,481 frequently cited scientific papers, but during that same year, Arab countries published just four. A 2002 analysis of Arab science in Nature magazine identified only three scientific areas of excellence from Islamic countries: desalination, falconry, and camel reproduction. According to Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg in 2011, “for forty years I have not seen a single paper by a physicist or astronomer working in a Muslim country that was worth reading.”
Contrast the Arabs’ dismal record of intellectual achievement in modern times with that of their closest cousins, the Jews, nearly all of whom live in democratic societies with laws that separate religion and politics.
Keep in mind that Jews, who number 15.8 million worldwide, represent a mere 0.2% of the world population. As of 2025, no Muslim has ever received the Nobel Prize in medicine or economics, and only four Muslim scientists—all living in Western democracies—have received the Nobel Prize in chemistry or physics. In contrast, some 200 Jews have received Nobel Prizes in science. About 26% of Nobel Prizes in math and science, 28% in medicine, 40% in economics, and 39% in chemistry have gone to Jews. Since 1901, some 22% of Nobel Prizes in all categories have gone to Jews.
Genocidal hatred against ALL Jews and Christians and other minorities is foundational to Islamism. Only in the West does Jew hatred pretend to require the alibi of Palestine or hide behind anti-Zionism. Muslim Brotherhood cosmology describes the universe as a cosmic, existential war between Islam and Jews that began with Muhammad and which only one side can survive. “Since Islam subdued them [in Medina],” Qutb warned, “they are unforgiving and fight furiously through conspiracies, intrigues, and also through proxies [the United States] who act in the darkness against all what Islam incorporates.” Islamist utopia will only emerge when every Jew is exterminated. Jews in Qutb’s theology are not just political adversaries, but perpetual and metaphysical evil. “The Jews,” he said, “are behind materialism, animal sexuality, the destruction of family, and the desolation of society.”
And Jewish genocide, for Islamism, is more than a theoretical aspiration. In 1948, the world’s 22 Arab nations were host to 750,000 Jews living in communities that predated Muhammad by 1,000 years. Today, there are virtually no Jews in those nations: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan, Jordan, Gaza, or the PA-governed areas of the West Bank; in Nazi terminology, they are Judenrein: Jew-free. There are fewer than 1,000 Jews in Tunisia, down from 105,000. In 1948, Christian populations represented 20% of those nations; today they represent 4%. These are the real ongoing genocides of the Mideast.
Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime bonded with early Islamists over their shared Jew hatred. The Nazis became the principal funder of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1930s, and the Muslim Brotherhood operated propaganda, espionage, and sabotage operations for the Nazis during World War II. Joseph Goebbels and an army of Nazi and ex-Nazi propagandists built the Muslim Brotherhood’s powerful propaganda machine in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s. The massive influx of money from Iran and the Gulf States starting in the 1990s turned this operation into an amplifier of unmatched power that makes Goebbels look like a piker. A global propaganda barrage by this outfit has distracted Hamas’s Western dupes from Islamism’s authentic genocides by persuading them that Israel committed a genocide in Gaza, even though, according to the CIA Factbook, Gaza’s population has actually increased since October 7, 2023.
Islamism is genocidal against Christians and Jews, but among its most pitiful victims are the Arab societies that suffer the misfortune of living under its rule. Despite all their petroleum wealth, Muslim countries have slipped behind Asia and Latin America in virtually every metric of political freedom, technological progress, and social well-being. Islamism’s merger of politics and religion has robbed Islam of its intellectual vigor and doomed most Muslim populations to living in stifling tyrannies with little freedom to elucidate their thoughts and speech or fulfill their creative potential. Those countries are predictably stagnant, unable to evolve in the modern world. The dark shadow of fundamentalism over scholarship and progress has proven toxic to the Muslims’ transition to modernity. The very civilization that practiced tolerance and celebrated pluralism and dialogue, filled a thousand libraries with its books, gave the world observatories and universities, and stunning innovations in science, has become closed, aggrieved, and violent, and averse to reason, curiosity, freedom of inquiry, and scholarship.
All 22 Arab nations in the Mideast and North Africa are autocratic dictatorships. Almost all are apartheid states that legally restrict the rights of minorities. Gays in many of the nations are put to death. Under sharia law, women have little more rights than cattle. They live stunted lives behind veiled faces, enduring systematic servitude, legalized domestic violence, child marriage, chattel slavery, and public stoning for adultery, which is legal for their husbands. In September 2021, the Taliban made it illegal for girls to attend school after age 12. The Taliban’s Vice and Virtue law forbids women from speaking aloud in public.
If you want to understand the Muslim Brotherhood’s vision for society, look no further than Gaza. Hamas, which rules Gaza, is the Palestine branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Palestinians have received over 4X per capita in international aid than Europeans received under the Marshall Plan. (See Clawson 2002.) Europe used its money to rebuild 17 nations. Palestinians couldn’t build themselves even one. Under Hamas’s iron fist, Gaza squandered its share on bombs, weapons, extravagant salaries for its billionaire kingpins, and a billion-dollar bunker and tunnel system built for its warriors—but off-limits to its citizens. Gaza remains a stunted and stagnant, impoverished society under tyrannical oppression, with no free speech or other basic freedoms. Hamas governs through force, including brutal crackdowns on discourse, public executions of dissenters and collaborators, tight controls on humanitarian aid distribution, and onerous taxes on almost every activity. No elections have occurred since Hamas took over in 2007. Instead of building a nation, Hamas has transformed Gaza into a death cult wallowing in victimhood, nursing aggrievements, addicted to violence, resentments, and yearning for a seventh-century miasma. Hamas nurses Palestinian infants from birth on genocidal hatred of ALL Jews—not just Zionists—and indoctrinates children in the savagery and unspeakable barbarism that the world witnessed on October 7. Hamas shows its contempt for the Palestinian people by deploying them as child soldiers and civilian shields, and placing rocket launchers and ammo dumps in schools and hospitals. Hamas’s greatest strengths are its propaganda operation and its willingness to impose unlimited pain on its own population to achieve its ideological goals.
Islamist governments like Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah distract their populations from their misery by blaming the myriad social ills and the predictable government failures on scapegoats: Jews, Zionists, and America. They’ll have us believe that all their derelictions are the result of the evil Zionists, the “Little Satan” Israel, and the “Great Satan,” the U.S. And just as victimhood is paralyzing to personal growth, it deprives Islamist nations of national success by robbing its practitioners of agency. Islamism’s cult of victimhood and its coterminous abolition of self-criticism have stagnated global Islam and locked it in hatred, violence, brooding resentment, and isolationism. Referring to the Arab world, Fouad Ajami described this as “a political tradition of belligerent self-pity.”
Contrast Gaza’s failures with the successes of its closest neighbor, Israel, a tiny sliver of swamp and desert 1/600th the size of its Arab neighbors, that blossomed into an agricultural juggernaut and a global economic and technological superpower. Jews took one of the few places in the Mideast with no oil, gas, or other resources, and despite being surrounded by enemies, they nevertheless turned the barren landscape into a vibrant, pluralistic democracy where Jews and Arabs vote as they please; worship according to their convictions; serve beside each other in the judiciary, the army, and political leadership; and enjoy equal rights. Women and gays in Israel have all the rights of men, and Israel’s biggest annual celebration is the Pride parade in Tel Aviv. As the only democracy in the Mideast, Israel is a robust and heroic outpost for freedom and Western values.
And Israel is merely a nugget among the bounties bestowed by Jews on Western civilization. There is no ethnic or religious group that has contributed more than Jews to the welfare of humanity or to the advancement of liberal democracy. Jewish traditions of ethics and thinking have shaped Western civilization and global progress through foundational moral concepts, including our monotheistic Christian belief system with its roots in Judaism, milestone scientific breakthroughs, medical innovation, and innumerable cultural achievements in art, literature, education, health, and entertainment. Relative to their proportion of the population, the astonishing contributions by Jews have been breathtaking. An abbreviated list would include medical advances like the polio vaccine (Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin), chemotherapy and immunology (Paul Ehrlich), streptomycin and the age of antibiotics (Selman Waksman), penicillin (Ernest Chain), pacemakers (Paul Zoll), and blood typing (Karl Landsteiner).
In sciences, a short list of Jewish luminaries would include Albert Einstein (theory of relativity), Niels Bohr (quantum mechanics), and Paul Berg (first recombinant DNA molecule).
Jewish contributions to business and technology include Google (Sergey Brin), Meta (Mark Zuckerberg), Oracle (Larry Ellison), Salesforce (Marc Benioff), Intel (Andrew Grove), and Dell Technologies (Michael Dell).
Jews virtually created the American entertainment industry, including founding six of the eight major Hollywood studios responsible for 75% of the classic Golden Age movies. They also revolutionized laughter. A 1978 TIME magazine survey found that 80% of professional comedians were Jewish.
The major figures of twentieth-century Western thought—Jesus Christ, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, and Karl Marx—were all Jewish. Twenty percent of philanthropic giving in the United States comes from Jews. Jews compose twenty-five percent of America’s most generous givers. They are overrepresented on lists of secular organizations that benefit human rights, social security, higher education, personal freedom, and constitutional rights. They represent 14% of doctors and 29% of psychiatrists. Their contributions to America’s global economic leadership include Salomon Brothers, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Blackstone, Wells Fargo, and Vanguard. In a rational universe, wouldn’t non-Jews be expected to celebrate these contributions with gratitude?
Now, here are some things that Jews don’t do: suicide bombings, rape gangs, beheading people, killing gay people, aspiring to kill all non-Muslims, forcing young girls to wed older men, lynching women for wearing makeup or showing hair, female mutilation, religious dictatorship, Christian genocide, polygamy, rioting and burning down cities, applying the death penalty for leaving Islam, cooking babies in ovens, hijacking airliners (and driving them into buildings), bombing buses and crowded restaurants, disfiguring girls with acid for failing to wear the hijab, operating modern slave markets where hereditary Black slaves are bought and sold by Arabs, advocating global jihad, and committing 90% of the terrorist acts globally.
These are the gifts that Islamism has bestowed on the world, along with closed minds, poverty, starvation, ignorance, oppression, and violence. This comparison begs the question, “Why does the world hate Jews and embrace Islamists?
The answer, of course, is a sophisticated mass propaganda campaign that ignores evidence and inverts reality to make Israel a global villain.
Looking at Islamism’s track record, seven nations with substantial Muslim populations—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, and Russia—have outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, branding it as a terrorist organization. Kenya and Argentina have also banned the Brotherhood for fear of its impacts on their societies. The Brotherhood today sees its best opportunities for expansion as Western nations that are unequipped to deal with its tactics.
In 2004, the FBI discovered the U.S. Brotherhood’s archives in a Virginia basement, including a 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum” characterizing the Brotherhood’s work in America as “a kind of gradual Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” Muslim Brotherhood documents describe this process of gradual infiltration as “gradualism,” “entryism,” or “Da’awa.”
In a 1995 speech in Toledo, Ohio, the Brotherhood’s leading cleric, Yusuf al-Waradawi, told his audience: “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’awa.” As a board member and outreach chair of a Muslim Brotherhood front group, Abdul El-Sayed ran a high-school recruitment program entitled “How to do effective Da’awa.”
The Muslim Brotherhood’s explicit written strategy for taking over Western nations is to broaden its appeal through a “red–green alliance” by adopting Leftist rhetoric and allying itself with liberals, socialists, and communists. This was the strategy first initiated by Yasser Arafat in the 1960s and then implemented by Muslim Brotherhood acolyte Ayatollah Khomeini during his 1979 Iranian Revolution, and later by Muslim Brother Mohammed Morsi during his 2011 color revolution in Egypt. After they gained power, the Leftists, in each case, learned that they were not actually Islamism’s partners, but only its useful idiots. Khomeini hunted down, jailed, and murdered his former Leftist and communist allies. Morsi sidelined his. A 2012 Arabic-language statement bearing Abdul Al-Sayed’s name backed Morsi’s presidency and urged him to “purge” the media and police.
Anyone wondering what America’s future looks like if the Muslim Brotherhood gets its way has only to look at France, where Islamist mobs of the red–green alliance, following the Muslim Brotherhood playbook, chant communist phrases, wave Palestinian flags, and vent their destructive hostility toward the West by destroying the iconic monuments of our shared civilizations.
Abdul El-Sayed mocks his critics as Islamophobic or anti-Arab racists when they inquire about his continued loyalties to the Muslim Brotherhood. But El-Sayed and his family have long and deep entanglements with the terrorist organization. A 20,000-word investigation by The Project for the Investigation of Terrorism documents El-Sayed's two decades of intensive affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood, and nearly every one of its legacy front groups that the Brotherhood set up in the U.S. to Islamify and destroy our democracy. That same organization recorded dozens of instances in recent years where Abdul El-Sayed has either directly lied about his relationship or refused to disavow the Muslim Brotherhood.
On Oct. 1, an Ohio voter became the latest to ask Al-Sayed to disavow the Brotherhood. Under persistent badgering before national news cameras, Al-Sayed finally caved: “Sure. Yeah, absolutely!” he said unconvincingly. He then spent five minutes attacking the man’s motives.
El-Sayed said nothing about the Brotherhood itself, its ideology, or the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations he works with. A disavowal that names nothing and condemns nothing is a disavowal in name only.
Why can’t El-Sayed give us a full-throated and detailed condemnation of this terror group, and disavow also its poisonous ideology without ambiguity? Why can’t he acknowledge that the Muslim Brotherhood is a despicable terror organization, and that Islamism and sharia law are anathema to American values? Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether a U.S. Senate candidate has loyalty to an ideology that openly hates our country and has vowed to destroy it.
Skewing the already deceptive Conversion Practices Bill.
I want you all to know this.
There are 650 MPs in Parliament. Yet the one MP chosen by @UKLabour to Chair the Bill Committee for the controversial, dangerous and dismally bad draft legislation, the Conversion Practices Bill, is Alex Barros-Curtis. Until July 2024, when Alex was given a very safe Labour seat in Cardiff, he was the Head of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in London. This was a department set up to investigate complaints against members of the Labour Party. Complaints of antisemitism, Islamophobia, abuse, and of course latterly, mostly women holding legally-protected 'Gender Critical' (sex realist) beliefs. Alex oversaw the investigation of hundreds of members who liked or tweeted gender critical or feminist views. I was one of them. He investigated me, as a sitting Labour MP, for 13 months.
13 months to 'investigate' one like of one tweet. I had a great lawyer, one of the names we're all now familiar with, and I had to crowdfund to pay for his (excellent) work.
They first tried in 2020. But the screenshots crudely attached to that passive aggressive, threatening-sounding email from LP admin staff were so risible that I replied that it was too ridiculous for me to waste my precious time on. They left it. Years of Starmer bumbling and stuttering through interviews about whether he had spoken to me, whether he supported me, etc followed. My feminist sins continued apace.
And then I 'liked' a tweet by my GC comedian friend @Glinner. He had mocked Eddie'Suzy' for comparing his choice to wear traditional women's clothing, fake plastic breasts and nails, to those being persecuted by the Nazis during WWII. I found his sarcasm, as a award-winning comedy writer in the face of such offensive narcissism amusing and so 'liked' it. I found it absurd and obscene that Izzard, an extremely privileged and wealthy man, who openly changed his 'gender' at will, should write himself into history falseley as someone who would have been oppressed due to a circumstance beyond his control. We all know the groups who were tortured, starved and killed...
There is obviously more to my story, I will tell it all, it's just one chapter of the years of spiteful abusive and bullying practices meted out to me by the Labour Party managers. Not those who'd achieved office on merit, or even unexpectedly, but those in the club, often having failed to be elected themselves.
So Barros-Curtis who we were repeatedly told led 'the many *independent* inquiries into women members and MPs like me, now often stands as a trans-rights activist on the Labour backbenches. He has also been gifted the role of Chair of this Committee and is a huge supporter of this Bill. And I am not a part of the Bill Committee, although plenty of TRA MPs are. Does that sound like the democratic scrutiny of legislation to you?
Bar Standards Board complainants competition.
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
Many of you don't understand how serious this is, so let me break it down.
In computer science there is a famous kind of puzzle called 3-SAT. You are given a long list of yes-or-no switches and a set of rules about how they must be arranged, and you have to find a combination that satisfies every rule. The obvious way to solve it is to try every combination, but each new switch doubles the number of possibilities, so a puzzle with a few hundred switches would take longer than the age of the universe to brute force.
For decades, the smartest people in the field found clever tricks that made this a little faster, but every trick still hit the same wall: the time required kept exploding as the puzzle grew.
About 25 years ago, two computer scientists, Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi, working with Francis Zane, turned that wall into a formal idea.
They proposed the Exponential Time Hypothesis, which says this explosion is not a failure of human cleverness but a law of nature. No algorithm, however brilliant, will ever solve 3-SAT without the time blowing up exponentially. Nobody could prove it, but almost everyone believed it, and it became one of the foundations of modern computer science.
Researchers used it as a measuring stick. If you could show that solving some other problem quickly would also crack 3-SAT quickly, you had shown that problem was hopelessly hard too. Hundreds of papers, across scheduling, graphs, logic and much more, rest on this one assumption.
Now an internal AI model at OpenAI claims to have broken it. It says it found an algorithm that solves these puzzles meaningfully faster than the hypothesis allows, and it has checked the proof in a computer verification system called Lean.
And here is the remarkable part: the very people who proposed the hypothesis, Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with MIT's Ryan Williams, are now leading the public review of whether a machine has disproved their own idea.
So what happens next? If the disproof holds, a large part of theoretical computer science has to be revisited.
Every result that said "this problem cannot be solved faster, assuming ETH" loses its foundation, and researchers will have to work out which of those walls were real and which were simply where we stopped looking. It does not mean everything becomes easy. The new algorithm is still slow in absolute terms and this is not the famous P versus NP problem being solved.
But it means our map of what is possible was wrong in a place we were very confident about, and it was an AI that redrew it. If the disproof fails, the hypothesis survives and the field breathes out, but we will still have watched an AI produce serious, checkable work on one of the deepest questions in the discipline, closely enough that the founders of the idea had to take it seriously. Either way, something has shifted.
(((Richard Drake))) retweeted
This is a documentary about gender ideology in Australia.
From the perspective of people who are gender critical, many of whom have suffered dire consequences for speaking up.
It should be fascinating.
PREMIERING NOV 5th
The debate we’re not supposed to have!
whodecidesfilm.com
#Auspol #WhoDecidesFilm
“Climate management bears no relation to the UN’s foundational charter of resolving international conflict; it's a textbook case of bureaucratic mission creep.”
We now see the full extent of preplanning and empire-building that went into the United Nations' global warming campaign.
It was all behind the scenes. Today, the UN has a workforce of roughly 190,000 and an annual budget of $3.45 billion. It has become a vast self-managing, self perpetuating bureaucracy - arguably the largest non-governmental network in the world. The UN had been laying the groundwork for an environmental crisis for decades before it was finally announced in 1988.
The UN took control of the World Meteorological Organization in 1951, transforming it into a specialised UN agency. The WMO operates with an annual budget of approximately $138.7 million and has a staff of 350 to 400.
The WMO bridges the gap between raw meteorological data, international political agendas and global news media - linking thousands of land stations, ocean buoys, aircraft and satellites. While its stated role is to share critical weather and water data, this massive infrastructure has been effectively co-opted into a public relations framework.
Consequently, the world has been bombarded with weather hysteria for almost 40 years. Mainstream news outlets routinely prioritise speculative, worst-case climate models over empirical observations - like 'rain bombs' - maintaining a permanent state of crisis designed to shape public compliance.
The information gathering agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, runs the scientific arm. It operates with a core secretariat of just 15 staff members and an annual budget of roughly $12.5 million. The IPCC was established 38 years ago, ostensibly as a neutral body to gather objective scientific information on climate.
In reality, the IPCC became the driving force behind the greatest environmental and social upheaval in modern history. Highly politicised from its inception, it was founded entirely by UN agencies - the WMO and the UN Environment Programme. This gave the UN absolute control over the global climate agenda and funded what has become the largest propaganda campaign in history.
The UN has also run annual fund raising COP summits around the world for 30 years. They have become junkets for the rich and privileged.
The IPCC did not recruit independent scientific staff; instead, its administrative apparatus actively sponsors and selects studies that supported the carbon dioxide hypothesis. Research raising questions or doubts are minimised or discarded. Critics find their studies starved of funding and publishers, while some even faced threats to their academic tenures.
Local weather outlets and national agencies now operate inside an ecosystem heavily influenced by these overarching, high-alarm targets, broadcasting continuous warnings of 'global boiling', catastrophic sea-level rise, and 'Code Red for Humanity' - with UN leadership acting as the chief amplifier. This environment birthed foundational, highly charged studies designed to lock in future warming projections.
For decades, the UN promoted only extreme scenarios. A prime example is the IPCC's reliance on high-end warming trajectories - such as projections warning of up to a 5.5-degree temperature rise - predictions so extreme that even mainstream scientists have increasingly conceded they are implausible.
Armed with a crisis of its own making, the UN called for the rapid dismantling of hydrocarbon fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - the very energy sources that lifted humanity out of stagnation and powered the Industrial Revolution. Almost every aspect of modern civilisation, from transport networks to industrial manufacturing, relies entirely on these dense, inexpensive and reliable energy sources.
Climate management bears no relation to the UN’s foundational charter of resolving international conflict; it's a textbook case of bureaucratic mission creep.
The sheer complexity of this UN machinery, combined with an aura of technical authority, is precisely what insulates it from public scrutiny.
