Over the past week I’ve engaged in a few discussions on Fascism, but not solely in relation to what Fascism actually is but instead it was primarily debating around the use of the word “Fascist” to describe Nigel Farage. Originally in reaction to a comment on the Times Facebook page it then dragged over into an attempt to tell the story which resulted in some of the listening parties to agree with my opponents sentiments. Safe to say it would have been an enjoyable debate had my opponents (in my opinion) not only understood what Fascism actually was but provided no substantial evidence to their point. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident whereby someone missuses the word “Fascist” to primarily demonize their opponent by associating them with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis by association. So the purpose of this is not to belittle my opponents, but to inform and educate so that when people so when you come across people like this you are prepared. Although I am by no means an expert on the subject I believe I have enough knowledge to  write a short and concise piece.

First off we must answer the question, what exactly is fascism? 

Many historians find Fascism hard to define in strict ideological terms, but some agree that it is more of a spectrum with central beliefs. The reason it is so hard to define is that there is no one central source from which the ideology derives itself from, as is the case with Das Kapital by Karl Marx is one of the key stages in the popularization of socialist thought. Some believe Fascism to have been created from a crisis of liberalism post First World War, with the failure of democracies to handle the climactic and dramatic extreme politics of the time. Others believe it to be a reactionary movement born out of the anti-Socialist sphere of politics in Europe at the time, many of whom used violence against them as a means to tackle the communist threat. Another theory is a simpler one which states that the fascist movement hearkened back to a simpler time before the industrial revolution in the mid 1800’s.

What does Fascists believe? 

While it’s origins are up for debate, there are a set of core beliefs and tenets which clearly lie at the heart of Fascism. One is that Fascism is strictly authoritarian, a core belief among fascists is that liberalism and  democracy have failed and the implementation of a strong state, a police state, centered around a single figurehead is necessary, thus focusing on a cult of personality in which all power lies.  Within the police state political freedoms are crushed and dissidents are all but eradicated for the stability and the preservation of peace.

Another is the collectivist and nationalist agenda in which individualism is rooted out in favour of policies which benefited society, one such common example is the idea that women are to be resigned to the motherhood role, focusing solely on birthing and raising the future generations. While Fascism does advocate government involvement in the economy, it wasn’t too concerned with the means of production but rather a top down managerial role.

Fascism is an ideology involved in aggressive imperialist expansion, to use the resources gained  through such endeavors for the betterment of the nation. Whether that be living space for the future generation to reside or to use the resources gained at the fuel for development and to feed their domestic economies. As a result the military becomes a focus of attention, so it gains increased funding and usually gains manpower through conscription and military service,as it needs to be prepared to engage in aggressive wars.

These are some of the core defining themes within the fascist ideology. While it does go much deeper than what has been described here, that is for another day.

Modern day use of the word “Fascism” or “Fascist”

As mentioned earlier today the word Fascism no longer has any real meaning in the common tongue. It has been supplanted primarily by those on the far-left, specifically in the antifa movement (ironic), as a byword for individuals and ideals which they disagree with. After all since the Second World War and the collapse of Fascist regimes on the continent there aren’t really any true fascists left as the ideology was basically debunked.

Unfortunately I don’t believe there will be a trend away from using “Fascist” outside of using it in the proper context and people will be willfully ignorant of its true meaning, but its just something we will just have to deal with for the time being. The best tactic we can do is to combat the use by learning what the true meaning of the word is and acquiring knowledge about Fascism so that when the time comes we can show them the truth.





Quick Thought: Soft opt out organ donation system

Something to think about from opt-out systems.

One topic which appears for discussion every now and again is the idea of an opt-out system for organ donations. This is a system which is based on the idea that everyone is automatically an organ donor and that you have to opt out of the system, as opposed to a more traditional opting in. From my understanding, the system comes into play in the event of a persons death, if they didn’t opt-out their organs would be available for transplant operations. Although this decision still has to be given approval by family members, so there is a barrier as opposed to being strictly an automatic process upon death.

On paper this system sounds like a fantastic way to solve the supply problem for organ transplants as there simply aren’t enough donors to keep up with demand. It’s one solution and a well intentioned one at that. But, I do have one issue with the system. It relies entirely on “presumed consent”.

Presumed consent is a contemptuous concept. It completely compounds the idea of individual liberties, which above all is a key tenet of the liberal democracies we live in today, that the individual is at the heart of decision making for their own lives. What “presumed consent” does is essentially take away that choice, whether it be the decision of society, committees or government, whether you agree or not, whether you have actually given your consent or not, your decision was made for you and not by you. The idea that the someone else has decided for you, that you have not, is something which should be thought about very carefully.


CNN Ignites Internet War

A few days ago Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States, posted a video on his twitter feed depicting him wrestling but with CNN imposed over his opponents face. Only 28 seconds long, it provoked an incredible amount of outrage from the mainstream media, being called an assault on democracy, assault on the press and said to be inciting violence against the press. With CNN being the media outlet chosen for the video, it is unsurprising that they were at the forefront of this rage.

It’s not shock that they was the target for the meme, for CNN has been one of the most ardent opponents of Donald Trump since the beginning. In their attempts to frequently smear Trump, and his supporters, they’ve become the vanguard , and ultimately the epitome of the “mainstream media”. It’s not just CNN however, for there are others such as the New York Times, Washington Post and other major media outlets, both traditional print and online, newspaper and cable.

The response from CNN, aside from claiming its an attack on the press, was to track down the origins of this video. In doing so they wished to locate the website, but most importantly the individual responsible. For if this individual corresponds to the caricature of the average Trump supporter –  racist, anti-Semitic and bigoted – then they can reinforce in peoples minds that this isn’t a fiction but reality. Thanks to the culture of unapologetic “shitposting”, the investigation bore fruits. They found the video posted on Reddit by a user the name of HanAssholeSolo, but that wasn’t the only inflammatory post. Though the posts have since been deleted, CNN claim to have seen posts by the user claiming to be anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and racist. A lengthy statement of apology has been issued.

What really however, and has caused the most uproar in the back draft, isn’t the investigation or the post itself, but the fact that CNN, a media giant, effectively threatened to expose this users real identity. The rumour going around right-wing communities is that the user in question is only 15 years old too. So the idea that some poor kid, who just posted some edgy comments and a funny meme on the internet, could potentially have his life threatened because of CNN is seen as a step too far.

Image may contain: text

An image which has been making the rounds this morning, circulating on social media is a post captured by someone on the infamous shitposting hotbed 4chan. Simply put, it is a call to arms. Calling on the veterans of previous conflicts they see this threat, this blackmailing, as not just an attack on some Redditor, who were one of 4chans’ traditional enemies, but an attack on all of them. This rallying cry, this call to arms is the beginning of a struggle which will come to be seen one of the internets greatest moments, as bands of like minded anonymous individuals came together to fight the media giants of the day, who they see as liars, corrupt and only there to spin lies and deceit among the people to protect vested interests against interests of the people.

Image may contain: text

CNN have ignited a war to which they can’t possibly hope to win, they might not have envisaged what would happen as a result of their investigation but the consequences are clear. All out meme warfare. The first missiles have already been launched in what has been called Operation: Autism Storm, with the supposed addresses of some of those who work for CNN, from hosts to political directors and senior media correspondents being leaked. Remember folks, these are the people who managed to find Shia Labeouf He Will Not Divide Us flag in a matter of three days, using flight patterns of plane trails in the sky, who found the cabin in Finland from which a livestream only shown the wall patterns, sifting through every single rent-able cabin and finding the corresponding location.


CNN have embroiled themselves in a war which they cannot possibly hope to win. It is unfathomable that the media juggernaut can withstand the unparalleled might of uncontrollable weaponized autism. Banded together they wield more power than anyone could possibly imagine. Unstoppable, unrelenting, unyielding they will never stop until the mainstream media is broken. This is going to be brutal and there will be no survivors.


Newcastle Rejects Austerity

Newcastle rejects austerity in the latest protest to descend upon Grey Monument

Another day another rally, this time in the heart of Newcastle at Greys’ Monument. On the 24th of June I took the long journey over to the political centre of Tyne and Wear to spectate, as well as show my support for, the Anti-Austerity movement. Organised by the Peoples Assembly it features a host of speakers, predominantly from those who work or have worked in the public sector to political activists. These warriors of the left feel rejuvenated by the victory that never was and the defeat that achieved stunning victory with the successive failure of the Anti-Austerity campaign which the Labour Party ran under Jeremy Corbyn in this years general election. They see the resistance to Austerity and seek to cement it in the publics’ mind with displays of solidarity and defiance preaching an alternative to end the political project.

It was a beautiful day too, bright, sunny and a chill breeze, the conditions were perfect for the euphoria of rebellion, contrasting heavily with the dark days of rain and thunder which preceded it. Arriving around an hour early before it was scheduled to begin at 11 the preparations were being made, some early birds like myself, a few stalls being set up and a group singing about refugees. Although I’m not sure whether the singers were related as they were off to the side on the peripheries as opposed to being centre stage, though they did leave before the event began so probably not. The main stall in the centre belonged to The Peoples Assembly, one of the main grassroots organizations which has been at the forefront of combating austerity. The other two belonged to the bitterly divided far left, the first being the Socialist Workers Party and the second belonging to The Socialist Party. The latter being clad in banners and both selling the party affiliated newspapers of Socialist Worker and The Socialist. The Socialist tried to recruit me but I politely declined.

As the time neared there were only around 80, maybe even 100 people at the most surrounding the podium from which the speakers would address the crowd. Eventually it got underway with an opening speech from the leader of North East Peoples Assembly about how and why she got into that position, being opposed to the austerity agenda, which was less an economic and more a political choice, and wanted to resist and fight back. This would become a common theme among the speakers who encouraged resistance and activism to fight back against austerity.

Over the course of two hours there were 10 speakers in total, from a board background such as MP’s, public health officials and teachers covering a range of topics. it would prove to be an impressive event, though one speech in particular was incredibly lackluster.  This came from a Momentum member, who from the outset it was clear he studied politics at university, whose speech was quite technical and intellectually demanding explaining the intricacies of the capitalist system. An impressive speech, for the politburo maybe…not for the proles.

Each of the speakers focused on a single topic, such as the NHS, the Fire Service or Education to the Environment, housing crisis or the Labour Party itself. The topics were normally linked into their jobs or experiences so it increased the veracity of the arguments, also increasing the emotional pleas as this was something which they hold very dear to them and felt was very personal. Each would recount personal experiences of how the cuts affected their lives, and the services in which they worked. They would then link together through the telling of a common story of how austerity, crony capitalism and the system has only caused untold misery for those at the bottom of society while cementing the power, influence and wealth at the top.

Outside of austerity, there was one event which united them, the horrendous tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Throughout their monologues they would bring it to this topic, throwing some harsh words towards the government. “People died because of class war” and “Grenfell residents murdered by austerity” were the most damning, the most scornful condemnations of a government who they felt had the opportunity to prevent the conditions which enabled this tragedy from developing.

Not all were unified however, for a small band of socialists were to disrupt MP Laura Pidcocks’ speech. Holding their placards high they tried to expose the fact that Laura had indeed voted in favour of austerity measures previously. In return they were labeled scabs, told to shut up and get lost. After the commotion Laura turned towards the Socialist Party to decry that “they’ve done absolutely nothing to get the Labour Party elected and are nothing but a cult”. A very strange and unexpected episode.

While the event itself did not draw a large crowd, it did indeed showcase the desire for change, the desire to resist and rebel against the austerity agenda and the desire for an alternative. Whether they will be able to achieve this alternative is another matter, for Jeremy is as loved as he is hated and so long as he is at the forefront with his prophet like status then he bares the greatest burden, being the linchpin for success or failure. If he can break the image that he is a terrorist sympathizer and a cultural marxist then he has a chance, otherwise he is doomed to go thus far and no further. The fate of austerity rests upon his hands as much as the hands of Mrs May.

That Happened. GE17.

Just a few thoughts from last nights stunning results

Surprise and bewilderment but also slightly pleased. Surprised because this was supposed to be a complete wipe out for the Conservatives as they swept up Labour seats left, right and centre… as the polls predicted in the beginning. Guess this is what happens when you refuse televised debates, refuse to seriously interact with the general public and refuse to do anything but staged photos and events. Just as I said when the campaigning began, it wasn’t Jeremys’ to win but Theresas’ to lose. And she bloody well lost it alright.

I am however slightly pleased because the Scottish National Party took a bit of a thrashing. Sure they still have the most seats in Scotland but hopefully, now they don’t command almost every MP in the country, someone will grow some balls and tell them to bog off with independence referendum number two. Although I do have to say it really is a bewilderment as to how Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson managed to lose their seats, to the Conservatives of all people!

Are UKIP dead? the simple answer is yes they bloody well are. I mean I do feel a bit sad about this but what can you do? It was to be expected that after achieving that which was their main goal, for 20 years, they’d simply lose clout.

Although I do have to say congratulations are in order for Jeremy though! He deified the odds stacked against him to rob the Conservatives of what was supposed to be their overwhelming majority. Looks like going around the country giving speeches and meeting the general public seem to yield positive results, who’d have thought? funny that.

What a strange timeline.

Reinventing myself: A New Beginning.

The reality is that you can’t sit behind your computer forever, one day you’ll have to accept the world doesn’t accept idle people.

For years I’ve struggled to rise from my lethargic state, from which I eat junk food with no end, fail to maintain my body through exercise and let my mental state slide into the void that consumes all who enter. It is best represented as the never ending cycle of despair, depression and loneliness whose sole purpose is destruction. It seemed almost impossible to break the cycle, but the truth is that you can.

Over the past month I’ve been seeing someone who has helped me get back on track, giving me renewed faith where previously there was none. It is an incredible achievement when you consider the time in which it arose, that out of the darkness came, the blackened mist came a angelic light with the power to bring change. And change is at its very heart. No longer can I allow myself to be controlled by my inner chimp, whose emotionally shaped path allows for nothing of worth to come about. The reality is I can’t sit here all day, starting at the screen and living in the bubble. Now that bubble has burst.

From now on its different, all that sacrifices which I will make are not for me, but for the future. Everything which the present me will do, exercising, pushing the boundaries outside of my comfort zone and becoming a more positive person are not for me at all, but my future self who will have a better quality of life as a result.

One aspect of life which I wish to provide my future self, which I am severely lacking, is the chance for a partner. Whether that be a man or woman, the reality of the situation is that when people look for a partner, they look for some who’s going to help provide social, emotional, financial and sexual stability. At this moment in time I provide none of those things, sure people may say that I’m a funny guy with some intellectual capacity, but I don’t have a job, I’ve never really thought about a serious career path and have few positive social traits. Add to this I’m not the greatest looking and starting to become overweight and you’ve got a home run of all the wrong variables. It’s time to change this, so the future me can at least have a chance, where present me currently has no chance.

All I do, all I will do, is for the future.


The BBC Leadership Debate: How the Leaders Fared.

A few words on each of the leaders or representatives of the two major, and 5 smaller political parties from Wednesdays live election TV debate

Yesterday on the 31st of May the BBC held an election debate featuring either the leaders or leading figures of the two major political parties, and some smaller ones. The leaders of UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru attended the debate for their parties while for the Conservatives it was Amber Rudd (Home Secretary), for the Greens it was Caroline Lucas (who shares leadership) and for the Scottish National Party Angus Robertson (deputy leader) took the place of Nicola Sturgeon. Taking place at 19:30 the debate lasted an hour and a half, ending at 21:00 sharp.

Until the morning of the debate it was unsure whether Jeremy or Theresa would actually turn up as the position of both leaders had been uncertain. This was emphasized by the face that both the Conservatives and the Labour Party failed to send anyone to attend the ITV leaders debate a week before. Surprisingly after much confusion Jeremy revealed on the morning that he would indeed take part in the election debate, throwing down the gauntlet to Theresa to attend.

This was quite the clever tactic on Jeremys’ behalf, waiting until the final moments to announce his attendance meant that it put Theresa on the spot, putting the pressure on her to attend and giving the impression of cowardice if she failed to do so. For if it was known that Jeremy was to attend in advance, the pressure on Theresa would have been placed over a number of weeks, petering out over time. Whereas what happened was a large amount of pressure was piled on the embattled Prime Minister within a short amount of time to put forward the case for a Conservative government and defend her precious records in government.

Throughout the hour and a half the debate took place, there were a few questions asked by the audience which covered a wide range of topics. From the decline in living standards, President Trumps announcement to leave the Paris Climate agreement, Brexit, immigration and the parties costings of their manifesto. Quite a variety of questions from which the panelists responded and debated aptly. With each came to the forefront the different strengths and weaknesses of each party, and most preeminently their leaders. This is how I thought each of the leaders and representatives did during the debate.

The Conservatives took a thrashing from all sides tonight, attacked for Mays’ lack of resolve to attend the debate herself, instead sending Amber in her place. She was there to defend their record in government and come under fire due to austerity and a disastrous foreign policy which has created space for one of the most hostile groups to grow and seize power. This atmosphere created a tough environment for Amber, but she managed to shrug off the hostility to focus on her main opponent, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. Acting as the vanguard of the Conservative machine of spin and soundbites, she relentlessly scorned Jeremy  for “Labours magic money tree” and claimed his policies were nothing more than fantasies. After these attacks she would be put onto the defensive by the rest of the leaders as they savaged the governments record, she did what she could to stand her ground, but she took some flak along the way which she was unable to successfully shake off. This comes from the fact that some of her arguments were quite underwhelming, so much so that the audience seemed to do nothing but laugh, especially when Amber asked the British people to trust their record in government in response to the question of the lack of costings in their manifesto.

For Jeremy Corbyn the main crux of his argument throughout the debate was to reinforce the message of his electoral campaign, which says that there is an alternative, it doesn’t have to be like this and that things can get better. To emphasize this point he rigorously attacked the austerity agenda which the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats as he pointed out, supported in government, the effects of those policies and the damage they’ve caused. Subsequently in between these relentless assaults he would also launch attacks on Theresa for refusing to turn up to the debate, saying at one point that the first point of good leadership was to “turn up”. In between these assaults upon the Conservatives he put forward a vision of a fairer Britain, through progressive taxation policies, greater investment in public services and in the welfare state. Providing a stable platform from which to create the basis of a Labour government under his leadership.

Similar to the rest of the progressive parties Leanne devoted quite a lot of her time to attacking austerity. Throughout the debate she consistently linked her arguments back to Wales, which while to the rest of us seemed irrelevant, it was important to hammer home in the Welsh constituencies. She would do this through attacking austerity, the Conservative economy policy and the immigration rhetoric then link it back to Wales where in the Welsh Assembly the party would introduce measures to attack social injustices and lessen the affects of austerity, such as the banning of zero hours contracts, which in turn the Labour Party would block them time and time again. Thus trying to prove to the Welsh people that the Labour Party was not their friend, but their enemy acting against their interests and effectively giving the Conservatives a free pass in enforcing the agenda the leadership was so against.

Unlike her predecessor Natalie Bennett, Caroline Lucas was an inspired intellectual whose carefully articulated vocabulary and debating style was a welcome surprise. Like many who fight from the progressive corner, she focused greatly on the effects of austerity and how the Greens would reverse the cuts, focusing on a better society rather than benefiting the privileged few. One of the key focuses for Lucas was scrapping of nuclear weapons, reinvesting the money we would spend on Trident into programmes such as promoting green energy, the NHS and other social programmes. One government policy which she wholeheartedly disagreed with was the continuation of selling weapons to countries such as Saudi Arabia, who is fueling wars and terrorism across the middle east, such as the Yemeni Civil War in which the Saudis have interfered.

Tim Farrons precarious centre ground positioning and the shameful leadership of his predecessor has left people wondering what exactly the Liberal Democrats stand for. Unable to provide what exactly a Liberal Democrat platform would be he certainly pulled above his weight this debate. Focusing on the issues which be believed were true to his heart and what people deeply cared about this election he attacked the Conservatives and Labour without end, specifying some of the key policies which he has been advocating throughout the election campaign. Issues such as social care, free school meals for kids, the NHS and the refugee crisis. One of his most important comments, as expected, were to come on the Brexit negotiations, focusing exclusively on Jeremy and the Labour Party for triggering article 50  as well as refusing to vote on an amendment which guaranteed EU workers rights in Britain.

The hardest person on the stage to get a feel for was the SNPs Angus Robertson. Unlike the others taking part in the debate here was a man who was either incredibly sincere, understanding and straightforward or none other than a male Theresa May who’s robotic and scripted responses were auto tuned to perfection. The only difference being that he was on the opposing side of the arguments to May. In line with other progressives he attacked the cruel and callous Conservative cuts to the public sector under austerity, denounced the state of the Brexit negotiation deals and promoting the positive of immigration. Again similar to Leanne he would bring the argument back to Scotland, hammering home the ideals of the SNP, showing the Scottish people why they should continue to vote for the party.

Unfortunately for Nuttall he was forced to fill a considerable gap left by his predecessor Nigel Farage (technically Diane James). Most likely he will never be able to fill the void of teflon Nigel, whose charisma and determinism helped build up UKIP to a potentially threatening anti-Establishment force as the debate, as well as the ITV debate, proved. Focusing on immigration and a right wing taxation policy it was incredibly difficult for Paul to garner any sympathies, and when challenged by Jeremy on corporation tax his argument simply faltered. The only positive reception that Paul received on any UKIP policy was on the subject of Jihadis returning from combat in Syria/Iraq.  Other than this is was a poor showing, potentially a symbolic milestone of things to come for the party. Attacking the size of the foreign aid budget he tried his best to put a positive spin on using the money to fund the NHS and other public services, but was hounded down by the progressive parties for attacking the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the world.

Some leaders fared quite well in this debate and either defied expectations or stood their ground in the face of stern hostility. Such as Amber Rudd who faced an incredibly hostile environment but managed to hold her precarious position. Even Tim Farron, having to return from oblivion thanks to his predecessor, managed to give a good debate performance, showing some of the causes the Liberal Democrats care about such as social care, the NHS and unsurprisingly his stance on the Brexit negotiations. Others meanwhile simply faltered and proved to be worse than expected. Specifically Nuttall, who while he had a rough time, failed to really get the message across of what UKIP really stands for, other than to mention the problems created by immigration and making some good points on issues around security. It’s not always easy to garner who won the debate, but with ease you can always determine who lost.

Social Media. Education. Reaction.

One of the things that creates huge tensions within British society, which observers have frequently noted, is the wide educational divides between the university educated and the poorly educated. This isn’t just a reflection on educational achievements either for it also bases itself in class too as those who are university educated are primarily middle class where as those who are poorly educated are primarily working class. It is something which has been particularly influential when it comes to peoples politics. Thanks to social media it has become easier to see the differences in their politics, their beliefs, thoughts and reactions to events, and its the reaction which is most interesting.

Upon reading Revolt on the Right (2013), which tries to explain the UKIP phenomenon, one of the things you learn about are the differences between the beliefs and values of the different levels of education. This is summed up most effectively by the terms civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism; the former being favoured by the university educated for its inclusive ideals, the latter being favoured by the poorly educated for at face value that is what determines whether you’re British or not. In civic nationalism being British is less determined by birth but by acceptance of law, British values and integrating into the community. Ethnic nationalism on the other hand says that whether you are British or not is determined by birth, focusing much more on ethnicity. Along with this view on how to define whether you are British or not, there are contrasts between the two when it comes to multiculturalism, diversity and immigration too. The university educated hold there beliefs firmly in their hearts, valuing them importantly. On the other hand the poorly educated tended to feel the opposite as some see it as a threat to British culture and a threat to social cohesion. They also care more about issues such as the jobs market, housing and welfare as these were immediate concerns rather than high minded ideals.

It comes as no surprise that there are differences between the poorly educated and the university educated on the ideas of diversity, multiculturalism and immigration. For it reflects the different lifestyle choices that were made and the influence they have. For in university its not just locals who are present, not just people from down south or up north, for it is somewhere the entire world attends. In university you are surrounded by all types of people from most walks of life originating from the vast planet we inhabit, which gives a unique insight into experiencing other cultures. Whereas for the most part the working classes exist in homogeneous estates and apartments, in pubs and at sporting venues. These differences help shape the views in which they hold.

Thanks to social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter you can make this observation just by following your news/twitter feeds. Especially in the aftermath of a terrorist attack committed, specifically by Muslim extremists. While for me I don’t have many poorly educated people as most of the people I associate with or have associated with in the past went onto university, I do see their reactions to the reactions of the poorly educated. They are often scornful at the attempts to put blame on Muslims for the attacks, saying that an individual does not represent the whole community and that we should reject the hate, bigotry and xenophobia from people below them in such events. This is a reflection of the different levels of education for university broadens your knowledge, forces you to expand your thinking and intellect,  so they think deeper about the issues. To the contrary those who are poorly educated take things more at face value, resulting in the reasoning which brings them to see this as a problem with Muslims and their crass ideas on how to deal with it.

Whether they are correct or not, whenever you see this kind of reaction all it appears to be is a continued demonization of people whose opinions are no longer accepted. Those below are nothing more than a bunch of uneducated racist swine whose opinions mean nothing, that they should be ignored and their anger cast aside as their views are not within the bounds of political correctness.

Whatever comes about because of this, it is clear that there remains a stark education divide which helps to self segregate the different communities through political correctness. Anyone who conforms will be saved, those who don’t will be the lost and the damned, reviled and vilified, lost and forgotten. How to bridge the gap, how to fill the void, how to unify people despite their differences and satisfy each party will be a big question in the years to come.