The treachery of “third-way” philosophy, political thinking and editorialisation is compounded by Disingenuity, Deception, Deceit, Demagoguery And Diatribe.
Huw Spanner is the managing editor of highprofiles.info website. He recently met Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) in the East End of London to interview him about his life, his beliefs and his politics. Huw sold this meeting as one “within spitting distance of Cable Street, on 11 September 2020”. September 11th is the day we remember the horrors of an Islamic terror attack, one that took the lives of around 3000 innocent people. Perhaps that is something worth noting, a literary juxtaposition of a historically significant date and a historically significant area of the East End. Huw’s literary prowess starts with poetic symbolism. He combines geographical, historical relevance, and the anniversary of the worst terror attack any western nation has ever witnessed as his “prologue” to this interview.
Could the “Cable Street” reference be a deliberate literary invocation of the “fascistic nature” of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon? The historical reference of Cable Street leads anyone with even the most basic understanding of British history to Oswald Moseley and British Fascism. Was that a suggestion by Huw, to prepare his readers for an insight into the fascistic inclinations of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon? Has he suggested to his readers that fascism or a “fascist-like” ideology guides the utterances and beliefs of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?
“The battle of Cable Street” in 1936 was, after all, about a clash between the Metropolitan Police, the British Union of Fascists and local anarchist, communist, Jewish and socialist groups in the East End of London. Where would Tommy Robinson fit in this semantic, metaphorical, allegorical historical and symbolic context?
Does Tommy symbolise the embodiment of the Metropolitan Police Force? Given Tommy’s run-ins with the Police, that’s not very likely. Does he symbolise the embodiment of anarchism, communism or socialism? Given Tommy’s penchant to deride such ideologies that’s not very likely either. So where does Tommy fit into Huw’s literary, poetic introduction? Is it within the writers “painted purview” of 1930’s British Fascism?
You, the reader, will decide for yourself.
“Third Way” Journalism
Let’s take a brief look at the interviewer, Mr Huw Spanner himself. According to his personal website he was educated at St. Pauls School in Barnes between 1972 and 1977 (a now “independent” boarding school for the rich, famous and connected folk). He attended New College Oxford between 1978 and 1981, again another affluent “home of higher education” which usually only the rich, famous and connected can afford to attend.
This suggests Mr Huw Spanner could have had a “middle to upper class” upbringing as a child. These are places of education that usually only the very wealthy and well connected can afford to send their children; they are certainly a million miles away from any “state-run” school or college, which puts Mr Huw Spanner in a very “privileged” position, not just today, but also when he was a young lad.
Mr Huw Spanners curriculum vitae (downloadable HERE) boasts not just a fantastic privileged education; it includes influential and managerial positions, one of which was a directorship at Third Way Travel, during which time he also worked as the publisher and editor of Third Way Magazine (from 1993 to 2002). Third Way Magazine was a “British current affairs publication” that was written from a “Christian perspective”, it is something that, to this very day, Huw Spanner is immensely proud of. In fact, Huw’s current website (High Profiles) has a manifesto glorifying his tenure as editor and publisher of Third Way Magazine. That “third-way spirit” lives on in his journalism today.
In the manifesto, Huw writes:
High Profile was the centrepiece of the radical Christian magazine Third Way from 1993 until it folded in 2016.
Huw revels in the fact that former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams called it:
‘Imaginative and unafraid … an irreplaceable contribution to the debate’.
High praise indeed from the former senior Bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, a man who arguably advocated for and recognised sharia law as a parallel jurisdiction that could run alongside the British legal system. High praise indeed for the editor of a “radical Christian magazine”, such recognition is a truly wonderful addition to an already impressive, privileged curriculum vitae.
Perhaps the most obvious question about Huw Spanner and the “radical Christian” Third Way Magazine is how “radical” are they? We found an article written and published by Huw titled “Icon of the Month: Che Guevara”. You can find that article by clicking HERE.
In the article, Huw Spanner states:
“Perhaps it is no coincidence that in the popular imagination Jesus often looks like Che”.
Let that sink in a moment, Huw Spanner, a religious man, writing, editing and publicising for a “radical Christain magazine” said that “Jesus looks like Che Guevara”, not that Che Guevara looks like Jesus! Huw’s “literary style” says a lot about him as a religious Christian, and perhaps more so it reflects on how much of a “radical” he really is. There is nothing to suggest that Huw’s “radical Christianity” has de-radicalised. He appears to be a left-wing, Christian revolutionary glorifying a racist Communist revolutionary murderer – Che Guevara.
Perhaps now we better understand the ideology and background behind the man that is Huw Spanner, we have a better understanding of where his ideology lies within a political context, although seperating his politics from his religion could prove difficult. With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that Huw is a huge fan of Jeremy Corbyn.
The Chairman Of Goskomizdat
On the 15th of October TR.News was forwarded an email from Mr Huw Spanner requesting clarifications and evidence to a variety of questions after he went through “a gruelling two-and-a-quarter hours” of subject matter that he and Tommy discussed during the interview.
We at TR.News were happy to oblige, after all, its right and proper for any interviewer to seek clarification on any matter that was discussed. We will now publish the questions that Huw asked and the responses sent to him. Huw’s questions are highlighted in red; our responses to him are highlighted in blue.
• Can he (Tommy) provide a reference for the claim that 20% of Muslims are radicalised/Salafi/whatever?
Tommy can do better than that, 20% is actually a “conservative” estimate especially when you look at the data for British Muslims only – 35% believe suicide bombings against civilians “can be justified”. And as a worldwide average, 27% of Muslims believe apostates “should be killed” for leaving the Islamic faith. The answer lies in how you want to define “radical”.
You can find plenty of PEW Research on this topic, but perhaps the best video explanation to use would be Raheel Raza’s (of the Clarion project) titled “By The Numbers”. Tommy defines “radical” as being any of the concentric circles in the video – a combination of jihadists, Islamists and fundamentalists. All three are “radical” by any stretch of the imagination, yes he also believes Muslims who want to implement and/or govern by sharia law are by definition, at the very least, “fundamentalists”, at the very worse, “jihadists”, and somewhere in between – “Islamists”. All three categories are bad, really really bad; all three are in conflict with the western world, western civilisation and western culture.
Obviously, YouTube has limited the video on its platform, but you can find it here on the Clarion Project website – https://clarionproject.org/numbers-watch-clarions-new-short-film/
Link to YouTube video which is limited on their platform (ask yourself why?) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk
The Islam problem goes way beyond “jihadism”, you must think about Islamism and Fundamentalism as well to get a real appreciation for the number of Muslims in the world posing a threat to our democracies, our freedoms and our culture.
• Can he (Tommy) provide a reference for the claim that there are 4,000 apostates in hiding in Britain?
There may well be more. Tommy would have taken another “conservative” estimate when making that claim. The Humanist UK apostate support programme estimates there are more than 15,000 people in the UK who have “left their religion”.
The Humanists UK support programme (Faith to Faithless) recruited 228 persons (102 male and 119 female apostates). Individuals were screened using a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale to quantify their experience of assault and negotiation. Within this sample, Muslim apostates were significantly more likely to be victimised than Christian apostates. This would mean Muslim apostates would need to be “hidden” more than apostates from other religions, simply because sharia law mandates the execution of Muslims who leave the fold of Islam.
Pew Research suggests between 2010 and 2016 Muslims in Europe – “…roughly 160,000 more people switched away from Islam than converting into the faith during this period.”
The Quran – An Nisa (The Women) sura 4 ayat 89 specifically tells Muslims to take captive and kill those who leave the Islamic faith; it also tells Muslims to not have non-believers as friends.
Link here – https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/4.89
There are many more hadith that also calls for the execution of Muslims who leave the Islamic faith; it would be a laborious task to cite every Qur’ anic passage, every hadith or every tafsir or sharia ruling on this matter here.
The CEMB (Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain) encouraged people online to use the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause and “come out” as an ex-Muslim. Within two weeks the hashtag was used more than 100,000 times.
Link here – https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34975848
If you want to see Huw’s published work derived from his interview with Tommy, then click HERE.
Tell us, is there anything in that interview, anything in the reference section, anything at all that mentions any of the points sent to Huw in the article he posted? We know the answer; there is not, do feel free to check for yourselves though.
The question to ask is why?
What reference articles Huw used are pretty much left-wing, Reddit, the BBC, the Independent, The Guardian and Wikipedia, among others.
Biased Towards Bolshevism
As we have already noted, Huw’s interview with Tommy was “…a gruelling two-and-a-quarter hours.” The High Profiles Twitter feed saw fit to post something about Tommy’s interview after it appeared on Huw’s website, the Twitter account referred to Tommy’s interview as “diatribe”.
Well, let us know your thoughts Huw, don’t be shy about it. This is a clear demonstration of the animus, hostility and snobbery directed towards a working-class lad from Luton, someone educated at a state-run school and college, a lad who has watched his town decline due to Islamification, a lad who stood up to some of the very worst Islamic extremists the UK has ever seen, and Huw’s opinion of that – “diatribe”.
Tommy never expects a totally fair and unbiased account of anything he does or says; he doesn’t expect silver spoon-fed academics or journalists to understand fully what it is like to live in Luton, because such people live in a world far removed from the realities of Islamification and Islamic extremism.
Tommy was interviewed the same day as Ash Sarkar, for those of you who don’t know who Ash Sarkar is then maybe you would like to read her interview with Huw by clicking HERE.
In contrast to the “gruelling two-and-a-quarter hour” interview Huw had with Tommy which would ultimately culminate in the publishing of “diatribe” on his website, he has a lot more positive things to say about Ash Sarkar, a young woman who self describes as a Communist and “self-brands” as “Bolshie”, of course, she could just be referring to herself as being difficult to manage or rebellious, she could also mean she’s ideologically aligned with Bolshevism (a Bolshie), who knows, maybe Huw could or should have pressed her on that matter for clarity?
We did mention at the beginning of this article the significance of Huw’s literary style, the invocation of a historically significant date and a historically significant area of the East End. Like Tommy, she was interviewed by Huw “…in the East End of London, a stone’s throw from Cable Street, on 11 September 2020”.
And now we come to a perfect juxtaposition demonstrated by a “radical Christian who worships Che Guearva above Jesus.” Let us take a brief look at the two published articles and play a little game of compare and contrast as a matter of objectivity. Let’s see if this works into Huw’s penchant for poetic symbolism.
Tommy’s interview is titled: “Spoiling for a Fight”. The first paragraph mentions he is “…reviled by others as an Islamophobe, if not a racist.”
Ash Sarkar’s interview is titled: “Young, Gifted and Brown”. The first paragraph quotes her on-air altercation with Piers Morgan (who Tommy also had an on-air verbal altercation with) when she said: “I’m a communist, you idiot. … I’m literally a communist.”
The contrast could not be any clearer; Huw’s biases could not be more apparent; his disdain for a white working-class lad whos views to him are “diatribe” is obvious. Exactly why Huw needed to recognise Ash’s “brownness” and ignore Tommy’s “whiteness” is something only he can explain, if he will at all that is? In fact, why is skin colour relevant at all? Is Huw projecting the bigotry of low expectations when referring to Ash’s skin colour?
Maybe Tommy is just white working class, state-educated trash with an inclination towards fascism? In contrast, Ash Sarkar is a sexually progressive, spiritual, well educated, brown-skinned Muslim Bengali whos mother was an anti-racist trade union activist. Ash’s mother met Mao Zedong, the man responsible for the founding of Communist China, a man who also happens to be the greatest mass murderer in human history, now there’s some real braggadocio right there!
Yes, it’s a no brainer when you really think about it? Huw was always going to gravitate towards and favour Ash Sarkar over Tommy Robinson.
It’s all about the revolution, baby!
Facts will only ever cause mischief for revolutionaries.
Mischief is punishable by death in Islam.
And there our “contextualised parable” of a warring fascist, a communist muslim and her ally ends.
Very poetic indeed!