@MasterMaliq No, itâs a cult. Like Scientology is a cult. Religion comes from Latin religare to bind back to the divine, ie a spiritual journey. There is no spiritual journey in Islam, only daft rites and rules.
Islam is a cult because of the apostasy rule.
@MasterMaliq Iâll take a different view. Itâs the idea that God (Allah) is a separate being. And a rather terrifying one at that. Common of course to Christianity and Judaism. Itâs only when you recognise that God is pure consciousness that you can get a proper perspective on life
@TomCatonthePiss@lembitopik When you look over 15000 years the increase isnât that unusual. Try Younger Dryas for example. The greenhouse gas theory is only one of at least 15 different things that can cause this.
@PSoffe1@lembitopik Read the actual IPCC reports, not the summary. Youâll get a different story. And it all depends which scientists you listen to. Looks like you are cherry picking your scientists.
@MasterMaliq God isnât to be worshipped. You are God. God is pure consciousness, the essence of all beings. Islam and Christianity have an external God. But even in the bible it says the kingdom of heaven is within.
Most people have no idea what Critical Social Justice is, most have never heard of it.
Yet, you are living under this ideology right now, and have been for years.
It is the mainstream ideology of the modern progressive Left that is subjugating Britain and the entire Western world.
It is not a harmless academic theory. It is a revolutionary force that has captured our institutions, rewritten our culture, and declared war on the foundations of Western civilisation itself.
If you care about freedom, truth, or the future of your country, you need to understand it, before it finishes the job.
Critical Social Justice is a subversive, authoritarian Far-Left identity grievance ideology derived from postmodernism and critical theory.
It is the belief that systemic oppression is embedded into the very foundations of Western civilization, and that every disparity in every outcome, both historical and present, is proof of that oppression.
Thus it views the foundations of Western civilization (Western culture, history, heritage and laws, Judeo-Christian values, and white historical majorities) as the primary sources of both past and present global oppression.
It further regards core Western knowledge, such as scientific and historical fact, and Western cultural norms, including the nuclear family, gender, race, sexuality, meritocracy, freedom of speech and common sense, as mere âsocial constructs.â
These social constructs are seen as invented fictions designed and maintained to uphold systems of oppression.
As such, it holds Western civilization and its institutions accountable for the full spectrum of historical and contemporary ills, encompassing colonialism, slavery, racism, patriarchy, poverty, epistemic violence, environmental racism and climate change.
Therefore, it frames humanity on a global, civilizational, social, cultural and human level through a rigid oppressor-versus-oppressed binary.
Any cultural institution, person or perceived âsocial constructâ from the West is deemed an oppressor.
Any cultural institution or person from the Global South, or any ideological belief antithetical to perceived Western âsocial constructsâ (e.g., trans), is deemed oppressed.
This is then broken down into an identity-group-based grievance hierarchy known as intersectionality.
The conclusion of this belief is that the emancipation of humanity can only be achieved through complete and total emancipation from Western civilization.
The goal of Critical Social Justice is the complete deconstruction of all perceived systems of Western oppression and all perceived âsocial constructs,â and their reconstruction into a post-national, identity-group-based collectivist equity regime.
This is implemented through mechanisms such as âDEI,â âanti-racism,â the trans agenda and decolonization, which serve as methods to seize and redistribute rights, opportunities, identities and privileges from the oppressors to the oppressed.
Critical Social Justice is not merely mistaken or misguided. It is evil.
It deliberately inverts truth, weaponises identity, and seeks the total destruction of the very civilisation that produced unprecedented freedom, prosperity and human dignity.
This ideology is everywhere. It is the reason police ignored Henry Novakâs dying pleas. It is why Jason Arday was elevated far beyond his capabilities, a promotion that ended in his suicide. It explains why the invasion of illegal migrants is left unchecked, why our history is being rewritten, why two-tier policing and two-tier justice are enforced, why children are being used as human experiments in transgender medical trials, and why free speech is being crushed.
Every absurd news story of the past few years, from âdogs are racistâ to âdecolonising Shakespeare,â exists for one reason.
Critical Social Justice.
Illegal immigrants are now leaving behind toddlers in the water to drown, and also raping and killing women on the boats as they cross.
This is why 99% of them are fighting age men.
Most women and children don't survive.
Say hi to your new neighbours.
Why we KNOW fossil fuels played a completely negligible role in the rise of atmospheric COâ
in plain English
1. Carbon has a fingerprint.
Carbon atoms come in two stable kinds. One is a little heavier than the other. Every source of carbon on Earth has its own mix of heavy and light atoms, and scientists measure that mix as a single number. Think of it as a fingerprint. Coal, oil, and gas have a fingerprint of minus 28. Carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ocean has a fingerprint of minus 8. Volcanoes are minus 5. Dissolving limestone is 0. A lower number means lighter carbon. These fingerprints are measured facts, and the IPCC uses the same numbers.
2. You can read the fingerprint of whatever is being added to the air.
When carbon is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere's fingerprint drifts toward the fingerprint of what was added. In 1958 Charles Keeling showed a simple way to read off the fingerprint of the added carbon directly from the air measurements. It is a graph. Plot the air's fingerprint against the amount of COâ in the air in a certain way and you get a straight line. Where that line meets the edge of the graph is the fingerprint of the net addition. This is not a computer model. It is bookkeeping. You count the heavy atoms, you count the light atoms, and the answer follows. Nothing about oceans, forests, or weather goes into it.
3. The fingerprint of the added carbon is minus 13.
Koutsoyiannis (2024) did this with the four Scripps monitoring stations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and the South Pole, using records from about 1978 to today. Every station gives the same answer: minus 13.2, give or take 0.2. These are the same records the IPCC relies on. Two completely separate measurements say the same thing. A Caribbean sponge that grows in yearly layers, like tree rings, records ocean carbon back to about the year 1500. Its fingerprint is about minus 13 for all five centuries, with no drift. Air trapped in Antarctic ice at Law Dome, analyzed by Köhler et al. (2006), also gives minus 13. Three different materials, three different laboratories, five hundred years, one number.
4. Simple mixing math sets the range from the modern data alone.
Every carbon atom added to the air came either from fossil-fuel combustion or from some non-fossil-fuel source: the ocean, volcanoes, rock weathering, plants and soil. The fingerprint of the mix tells you how much came from each. It works like mixing paint. If you mix black and white and get a very light gray, you know there was very little black. Fossil-fuel carbon is the black, at minus 28. The ocean is the white, at minus 8. The measured mix is minus 13, much closer to the ocean than to fossil fuel.
The modern record from 1978 to today does not by itself pin down the exact fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. It could be anywhere from minus 8 (pure ocean) down to minus 13 (matching the mix exactly). Run the mixing math across that whole range and the fossil-fuel share comes out somewhere between zero and 26 percent. That is what we know from the modern data alone: not more than 26 percent, possibly zero. The exact answer comes in step 6.
5. The official claim is impossible under any assumption.
The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise. That is close to 100 percent. "Dominant" by any normal meaning is at least 80 percent. Run the mixing math backwards and ask what the non-fossil-fuel carbon would have to look like for each of those claims to be true:
- For fossil fuel to be even a bare 50 percent, the non-fossil-fuel carbon would need a fingerprint of plus 1.6. No carbon source on Earth is that heavy.
- For 80 percent, it would need a fingerprint of plus 46. That is more than 20 times heavier than the heaviest source that exists.
- For 90 percent, it would need plus 120, about 60 times heavier than anything on Earth.
- For 100 percent, it would need to be infinitely heavy.
The official claims do not fall a little short. They require carbon sources that do not exist.
6. Five hundred years of no change gives the exact answer: essentially ZERO (0% fossil-fuel sources).
The modern data left one unknown: the fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. The sponge and ice-core records supply it. In the year 1500 there was essentially no fossil-fuel burning, so the fingerprint of the added carbon then, minus 13, came entirely from non-fossil-fuel sources. That fixes the unknown at minus 13. Since 1500, fossil-fuel burning has grown about ten thousand times over. If fossil-fuel carbon were any real part of the added carbon, the fingerprint would have slid toward minus 28 as burning grew. It did not move. It is still minus 13 today. Put minus 13 for the non-fossil-fuel carbon and minus 13.2 for the modern mix into the mixing math and fossil fuel's share of the added carbon comes out at about 1 percent, which is zero within the measurement error. The range of zero to 26 percent from step 4 collapses to a single answer: essentially zero.
7. Why this is knowledge, not opinion.
The conclusion rests on three things only:
- counting atoms,
- the standard measured fingerprints of fossil-fuel carbon and the other sources, and
- the Scripps, sponge, and ice-core records.
The IPCC uses all three. Anyone who accepts all three and rejects the conclusion is refusing to do arithmetic. The only way out is to throw away one of the three, and each one is a foundation of the IPCC's own work, and nobody has done so anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature.
8. What is actually happening.
Burning fossil fuel does put COâ into the air. That is measured at the smokestack. But a COâ molecule stays in the air only about four years on average before the ocean or plants take it back. So fossil-fuel COâ never piles up. Add up all fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 with that four-year turnover and only about 4 percent of the carbon in today's air came from fossil fuel. The growth in atmospheric COâ since the industrial revolution came from non-fossil-fuel sources.
Fossil fuel's share of that growth is essentially zero.
@Blobby162095@realMaalouf The state called Palestine consisted of a lot of Jews and not many Arabs. Very low population. Then a lot more Jews came. They cultivated a barren landscape, and then lots of Arabs came to help work those lands. Those Arabs came from Egypt etc, you call them Palestinian
My friend just sent me this YouTube about Cornwall. Its absolutely WONDERFUL. I feel fired up, and so proud đ
If you ever wonder why I am so passionate. And feircly protective about my beloved home and people, culture, language and history, watch this and you'll understand.
https://t.co/5ype4Ktszi
@TomLondon6 The irony here is palpable.
That so many have fallen for the propaganda in 2026 reveals some of how it worked in 1936.
Goebbels himself would probably be envious of how effective the genocide lie is, and how easily it is regurgitated by the useful idiots.
Please remember. Cancer is just a peaceful unchecked division of cells. We really need to worry about Cancerism, which has nothing to do with Cancer.
Cancer is peaceful.
Cancerism is violent.
Dear Mr. @Jesse_Leg, what are you calling "Islamism" is 90% of Islam. Please stop using this strategy to soften the blow against criticism of a religion. There is no Islamism. There is no radical Islamism. There is no militant radical Islamism. There is just Islam. Individual Muslims may choose to live peacefully. That's not because they are practicing some beautiful & peaceful version of Islam. It's because they happen to be peaceful people. I don't know how many more times I need to repeat this.