To be pedantic, yes. In reality it is difficult to rise to positions of seniority and power in Labour unless one is sympathetic towards Zionism.

The reason muslims cannot hijack and take over Labour is simple- an islamic party would oppose many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party supports and support many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party opposes.

If half a million Muslims joined Labour all at once then theoretically they could hijack and take over the party through sheer number and majority consensus if you factor out the Zionist dominance. In practice the Zionists would not allow such a hijack to occur. One tactic would be to split the party ensuring the Zionist dominated faction takes the name Labour and most of its non-Muslim membership.

Muslims who base politics directly on islamic doctrine are going to support policies which nearly all members of the Labour Party and mearly all nonmuslim inhabitants of the U.K. would unequivocally reject.

True but there isn’t a political party in Britain with policies based on Islamic doctrine. Whether there is no demand for such a party or whether nobody has got round to creating it is a question I cannot answer.

This is because Zionists are masters of a cunning talent at being able to get the masses or the common population to support them whilst simultaneously working on their own agenda. Labour prior to WWII derived much of its support from the industrial and manual workers all whilst its Zionist masters plotted the creation of Israel. Labour after 1960 managed to persuade ethnic minorities and public sector workers to support them all whilst its Zionist masters continued their agenda.

Religeon is not a good source of politics because once you understand both of them, will you become clear how important it is to segregate them otherwise one will molest the other. They are just not compatible at all.

One of the most notable features of Islam is that it has rules and regulations on the way a country is governed, the laws it imposes, and its financial and economic policy. If Islam was reduced to a ‘personal’ status whereby laws and economic policy were decided through secular means then it wouldn’t be Islam.

This political and economic aspect of Islam is why Islam is so feared and distrusted in the west which has been used to having religion primarily as a hobby or personal issue as opposed to a political or economic force since the Reformation.

“Muslims and Europeans share the ideals of decency and honesty than that of the Straws built upon facade and Houdini politics.” However, even if true (I don’t think Muslims and Europeans are mutually exclusive categories, actually) Muslims and Europeans have rather different definitions of decency and honesty. ##”Where are the WMDs they convinced the MPS with?” Actually, they- rather more than Millibrand and Straw, actually- used a mixture of arguments and patronage to convinve M.P.s.

“Religeon is not a good source of politics … They are just not compatible at all.” Unfortunately many- quite possibly most- muslims disagree with you.

Both Straw and Milliband support irrational racialist policies of a particular foreign country which is at odds with the majority of people on this earth. Yet they still make it.

I think the biggest milestone for Muslims will be the day an injection of confidence is found from anywhere feasible. Muslims and Europeans share the ideals of decency and honesty than that of the Straws built upon facade and Houdini politics. Where are the WMDs they convinced the MPS with?

These “think tanks” are clever in a way because they cater to the current McDonald generation of just picking ideas and running away with it as they see fit to exploit whatever opportunity that comes their way.

I saw how Obama was groomed similar to Colonel Powell. The only reason why they were there was because the majority of people believed such persons of Powell’s status and background wouldn’t sink as low as the Pearls and Co. But his image was what they wanted, and they sold it to the UN during those wild nuclear,chemical and biological accusations against Iraq.

Now this Obama is another Powell whose main aim is to attack another sovereign nation to keep the region in the stone age. All of the good will messages to Iran that you hear about is just so they could later on say “don’t say we didn’t try?”

Religeon is not a good source of politics because once you understand both of them, will you become clear how important it is to segregate them otherwise one will molest the other. They are just not compatible at all.

Even if your sources of information are independent, that does not mean their sources of information are independent. Even if they are, it still does not mean that what they say is true.

The Labour Party is not “100% Zionist”- many members of the Labour Party have not seen any intellectual conflict between their aspirations as members of the Labour Party and Zionism. The two opinions are separate. The reason muslims cannot hijack and take over Labour is simple- an islamic party would oppose many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party supports and support many things nearly all of the membership of the Labour Party opposes. Zionist members of the Labour Party- like zionist members of any other party- have a variety of opinions about domestic policies in the U.K. They even- like anti-zionists- differ about what precisely zionism is and how exactly they supprt or oppose it. Muslims who base politics directly on islamic doctrine are going to support policies which nearly all members of the Labour Party and mearly all nonmuslim inhabitants of the U.K. would unequivocally reject.

Straw and Milliband never hijacked Labour because Labour has been 100% Zionist from its outset which was long before Straw and Milliband were even born. Labour was instrumental in establishing the state of Israel which was a dream of many Jewish and Zionist members of Labour during the pre-war era.

The Fabian Society, which is the intellectual wing of the Labour Party, has always worked hand in glove with the Zionists. It’s interesting to note that EVERY Labour prime minister to date has been a fully paid up member of the Fabian Society.

If any Muslims (or indeed anybody opposed to Zionism) think they can hijack and take over Labour from the Zionists then they are fighting an unwinnable battle. Considering that this information has come to me from a variety of independent sources then it must be true.

I think that is unfair and it suggests that such a “Muslim party” is only sought after by those who wish to isolate Muslims so they could easily be deemed as “extremists”/”hateful” etc by the likes of Jack Straw and Millibands of this world.

An astute ambitious person would know that “white” constituents are just as important as people of any colour. So I do not understand why a Muslim is expected to pander to his lot alone. Would Obama had done it with only black votes?

That’s because Straw and Milliband are both Zionists.

So you already admit to the existence of people who had hijacked one or more particular political parties, and I stand by the Straw and Milliband fashion as a template to start from than to suddenly crash onto earth from Mars with Islam centric political party. Why reinvent the wheels, when there are plenty of mainstream political parties to exploit?

The people at the top of Labour will never let Muslims have any serious influence on their party because much of what Muslims believe in goes against what Labour stands for. Labour has much more to gain from the Muslim vote than Muslims have to gain from Labour. Several white muslims have told me that almost every service Labour offers Muslims is of a racial, linguistic, or cultural variety rather than a religious variety, and precious little of that benefits white Muslims.

Muslims actually don’t dominate that many constituencies, and votes for minority parties are wasted, which keeps Muslims (and other minorities) trapped in the pockets of the mainstream parties, usually Labour (but increasingly the Lib Dems). Our voting system also reduces the influence of minority parties who actually get into Parliament; the ruling party has most of the seats in the Commons, even if it had much less than 50% of the votes.

Then again, a Muslim party could be important in councils and in European and local elections where there is some degree of proportional representation, but not in the Commons.

You are wrong. An Islamic political party will not do much worse under first past the post than it will under most systems of PR. Unlike with the Greens and UKIP where supporters are spread thinly, Muslims are concentrated into a small number of areas. First past the post does not disfavour small parties at all but parties where support is spread thinly. It rewards parties that have concentrated support. An Islamic political party will get next to no votes in say Tiverton and Honiton or Penrith and the Border, but it could win certain constituencies in London, the Midlands, and Yorkshire.

I was talking to a member of the English democrats who seconds me on this and thinks that a half a million votes for an Islamic political party will elect many more people than half a million votes for the English democrats. He then mentioned the Kidderminster Health Concern party and how it managed to win at local and national level because of concentrated support in Wyre forest despite have almost no support elsewhere. He then said the English democrats don’t have this advantage yet but the Muslims do but don’t make use of it.

Exactly, if it is good enough for the Millibands and Straws of this world, it is good enough for us. However, economics matter a lot more than “common shared ideals” which you hear so often. Votes don’t mean anything, but ££ makes the changes we require to safely bring up our children in this country.

That’s because Straw and Milliband are both Zionists. If you didn’t already know, Zionists have held an iron grip on Labour since the outset and will never let go. Zionists can get to the top of Labour easily. Muslims and those critical of Zionism can’t.

Hijacking local branches of Labour adds fuel to the fire of the BNP. Whenever Muslims hijack a local branch of Labour (and sometimes the Tories and Lib-Dems) they end up pandering to the interests of (mainly ethnic) Muslims and ignoring white non-Muslims. The white non-Muslims (and some ethnic non-Muslims) who feel ignored and betrayed then turn to the BNP.

Plus, they tell us that the UK is “Multi-cultural”, so why not force them to proof it rather than ghettoising the poor Muslims more than they already are with this religious party.

Why would Muslims want to live in a multicultural society? Most of the white Muslims I have met don’t give a damn to non-Muslim blacks and Asians. They say that most of them hate Islam anyway and are destined to go to hell. They also said that one day somebody will set up a multiracial anti-Islamic party.

Exactly, if it is good enough for the Millibands and Straws of this world, it is good enough for us. However, economics matter a lot more than “common shared ideals” which you hear so often. Votes don’t mean anything, but ££ makes the changes we require to safely bring up our children in this country.

Plus, they tell us that the UK is “Multi-cultural”, so why not force them to proof it rather than ghettoising the poor Muslims more than they already are with this religious party. The Christians can get away with it cos they own the country and they number in the tens of millions.

We should not tolerate any more micky mouse ministerial positions such as this Communities Minister they concocted lately. Embassies of Muslim countries should also be galvanised in a coordinated effort to pressure this country to pursue the correct path of “multi-culturalism” or economic sanctions be brought against the UK.