On the 24th of March,i had the qualified privilege of attending a Basingstoke Cabinet meeting and was very surprised with the reception,i got from the patrons.I might have been the only minority and only journo representing Winchester.The leader(chairman) of the cabinet asked me to sit where the press people are allocated and for that reason,i enjoyed the sovereignty of Britain.
The Agenda was purely based on the proposed facelifting of The Basingstoke Mall.On both sides of the committee suite i was flanked by cabinet members and two solicitors from legal and democratic services.I even got more excited when the leader told everyone that the deliberations would be going live on webcast,and could be accessed by members of the public on the internet.
The chairman,started by asking cabinet members whether there were any objections in regard with the budget of the facelifting of the Mall.However the 72page agenda was just too daunting to read through and because there were 'pink' areas(not accessable to press or the public),the meeting was adjoined.Hence,i was only there for 15minutes and never really got what i wanted.
Interesting though, were the reservations i made about the functions of a typical English Mayor.It was shocking to note that these so called Mayors are not on anyone's payroll.The only benefit is a brand new car to chauffeur himself around,petrol paid for and a credit card for his spouse to shop around for dear clothes.It's more of a ceremonial role than what those of us from Africa are accustomed to.One aspect i also found to be petrifying is the fact that a county mayor's office term only runs for 12 months.Apparently he/she is voted in by the councilors of that particular county.
So why bother to work for free anyway?
Friday 27 March 2009
Advent of New Media Technology haunt bloggers
It is with great sorrow that,after Tuesday's session which partly covered an intro to the truth behind sharia law,i went home disturbed as to how simple,a dogma can enslave people in a 'democratic' society.On my arrival ,i took another setback when i tuned into Al Jazeera to get an update on news around the world - including Islamic republics.Iran are on the verge,of drafting a bill which will effectively see the extemination of vile and political bloggers(antagonists).If i cast my mind back to 2003,Iran became the first government to imprison a blogger - Sina Motallebi.And in that period a record 41 daily newspapers had been banned.Of course,anti-censorship groups have been lobbying against the ruthless media laws,but without success.
Amid the proposal by the Iranian authorities to pass the 'bill' into an act, a majority of those within the media might be forced to polarise against such a move.So far,in Islam there are three things which constitute to a death penalty - murder,adultery and of course apostasy(which is a simple conversion or deviation from Islam).That is Sharia law at its best.If passed into constitution then those who vent their anger against the government through blogging will DIE HARD.And no one will be accountable but Sharia law.Sir Da Gama,a missionary tutor at Pretoria boys high once said,a martyr is a person who dies for what he believes in.Just like Bernard Mizeki who was speared to death for trying to convert the monotheistic believers of Southern africa.And yes he died a painful death - for what he believed in.The allegiance to Islamic faith is the epitome of commitment and sacrifice.Any breach of the code of the quran,you are history.
As Chris alluded in the session - Turkey is still an Islamic nation but ruled by a moderate - who i think encourages secularism.He believes that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, unbiased by religious influence.So by being a moderate - does he face the wrath of Islamic republics?.Yes i suppose,because his ideologies are critical of religious orthodox and once asserted that religion impedes human progress because of it's focus on superstition and dogma versus reason and scientific method.
In my earnest opinion,sharia law is not bad for those who committed themselves to Islam in the first place - because you pledge to live by the quran and die by the quran
For now i am out.Peace
Amid the proposal by the Iranian authorities to pass the 'bill' into an act, a majority of those within the media might be forced to polarise against such a move.So far,in Islam there are three things which constitute to a death penalty - murder,adultery and of course apostasy(which is a simple conversion or deviation from Islam).That is Sharia law at its best.If passed into constitution then those who vent their anger against the government through blogging will DIE HARD.And no one will be accountable but Sharia law.Sir Da Gama,a missionary tutor at Pretoria boys high once said,a martyr is a person who dies for what he believes in.Just like Bernard Mizeki who was speared to death for trying to convert the monotheistic believers of Southern africa.And yes he died a painful death - for what he believed in.The allegiance to Islamic faith is the epitome of commitment and sacrifice.Any breach of the code of the quran,you are history.
As Chris alluded in the session - Turkey is still an Islamic nation but ruled by a moderate - who i think encourages secularism.He believes that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, unbiased by religious influence.So by being a moderate - does he face the wrath of Islamic republics?.Yes i suppose,because his ideologies are critical of religious orthodox and once asserted that religion impedes human progress because of it's focus on superstition and dogma versus reason and scientific method.
In my earnest opinion,sharia law is not bad for those who committed themselves to Islam in the first place - because you pledge to live by the quran and die by the quran
For now i am out.Peace
Monday 16 March 2009
Beware to walk on quicksand - Journos
For the rest of my life,i will live to curse those that drafted one of the many clauses of the European Convention on Human rights.The right to privacy!Whose privacy?Damn,as an aspiring and potentially talented journo,i have now been forced to mind every step i take in pursuit of breaking news for the sake of public interest.In my motherland,cartoonist are being sued for millions of pounds for 'defaming' political demagogues and some are reportedly abducted for 'pervasive' investigative journalism.Now when i crossed the sahara desert and the massive bodies of water to come and refine my trade in England,i found that the protocol is the same.Journos are sued for millions of pounds for taking photographs without consent.Where does the future of investigative journalism lie?
Last week, i was rudely interrupted by a female security officer at the Basingstoke Festival mall.My crime - carrying the Canon SRL Stills' Camera in my hand.The assumption was that i might have been secretly photographing the mall for publication.I tried in vain to explain that i was coming from Jessops,where i had purchased a memory card.The argument,turned nusty as i vehemently refuted her suggestions of putting my camera away.Several security officers were summoned to deal with the defiant Mr Muchoko.As the impasse gained momentum,the crowd gathered in disbelief.Poor me,and poor journos.I never intended to take any photographs and i never took any.Was i a victim of circumstances because i am black?,so i thought.Afterall Victor Anichebe who plays for Everton was recently arrested for loitering around a jewellery dealer shop in Cheshire.The fact of the matter is that it had nothing do to with my skin colour - but the repressive privacy act.The prima facie was the camera in hand.To end the debacle,i was escorted out of the mall under heavy guard despite my innocence.
Another interesting story for journos to mind their every step is the Tesco vs Guardian story last year.I watched a television programme a week ago on BBC - where the press standards committee,Solicitors and legislators debate on current press laws. The Guardian was sued for libel and malicious falsehood.Apparently the guardian's specialist reporters on finance and tax carried an investigation into the offshore property deals by Tesco.They reported that Tesco - one of the largest public companies in Britain and the fourth largest retailer in the world had evaded corporate tax.In essence Tesco had not evaded corporate tax,but their deals were structured to avoid a different tax - the stamp duty land tax.In fact they didn't avoid any form of tax,but the stamp duty route minimises costs.
From the above scenario it's evident that the reporters used a wrong terminology,hence Tesco won the case and an out of court settlement was done.This is just as good as calling someone convicted of stealing,a robber.You will be done for that - mind your language!
On that BBC programme,i also noted that apart from the Reynolds defense,we are now partly covered by a new amendment.An offer of amends,was designed by Parliament as a means of settling defamation cases quickly and with minimum cost.The idea is that the newspaper should admit error and publish a correction and apology,with a judge deciding on damages.If the claimant accepts the offer of amends,it's the end of the case - barring damages.If it's rejected ,the burden of proof switches to the claimant,who must then prove malice and if unsuccessful,has to bear the costs of the entire proceedings.
Before i buzz off,some tabloids have come up with a strategy - Circulate a malicious story,earn millions and then pay very little on out of court settlement.But that's dangerous though.
Being a journalist in England is just as good as sitting on a time bomb waiting to explode.But don't give up we will fight for our rights!
Last week, i was rudely interrupted by a female security officer at the Basingstoke Festival mall.My crime - carrying the Canon SRL Stills' Camera in my hand.The assumption was that i might have been secretly photographing the mall for publication.I tried in vain to explain that i was coming from Jessops,where i had purchased a memory card.The argument,turned nusty as i vehemently refuted her suggestions of putting my camera away.Several security officers were summoned to deal with the defiant Mr Muchoko.As the impasse gained momentum,the crowd gathered in disbelief.Poor me,and poor journos.I never intended to take any photographs and i never took any.Was i a victim of circumstances because i am black?,so i thought.Afterall Victor Anichebe who plays for Everton was recently arrested for loitering around a jewellery dealer shop in Cheshire.The fact of the matter is that it had nothing do to with my skin colour - but the repressive privacy act.The prima facie was the camera in hand.To end the debacle,i was escorted out of the mall under heavy guard despite my innocence.
Another interesting story for journos to mind their every step is the Tesco vs Guardian story last year.I watched a television programme a week ago on BBC - where the press standards committee,Solicitors and legislators debate on current press laws. The Guardian was sued for libel and malicious falsehood.Apparently the guardian's specialist reporters on finance and tax carried an investigation into the offshore property deals by Tesco.They reported that Tesco - one of the largest public companies in Britain and the fourth largest retailer in the world had evaded corporate tax.In essence Tesco had not evaded corporate tax,but their deals were structured to avoid a different tax - the stamp duty land tax.In fact they didn't avoid any form of tax,but the stamp duty route minimises costs.
From the above scenario it's evident that the reporters used a wrong terminology,hence Tesco won the case and an out of court settlement was done.This is just as good as calling someone convicted of stealing,a robber.You will be done for that - mind your language!
On that BBC programme,i also noted that apart from the Reynolds defense,we are now partly covered by a new amendment.An offer of amends,was designed by Parliament as a means of settling defamation cases quickly and with minimum cost.The idea is that the newspaper should admit error and publish a correction and apology,with a judge deciding on damages.If the claimant accepts the offer of amends,it's the end of the case - barring damages.If it's rejected ,the burden of proof switches to the claimant,who must then prove malice and if unsuccessful,has to bear the costs of the entire proceedings.
Before i buzz off,some tabloids have come up with a strategy - Circulate a malicious story,earn millions and then pay very little on out of court settlement.But that's dangerous though.
Being a journalist in England is just as good as sitting on a time bomb waiting to explode.But don't give up we will fight for our rights!
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Open letter to Yaz Murray
After carefully reading a blog casually written and edited by one of my 'learned' colleagues at Uni,Yaz Murray,i have decided to write an open letter of acknowledgement.At least you made me to think extensively this time around and have no hesitation to compliment you for a thought well written.
You mentioned that Karin said,cats see the true colour of grass better than humans.Of course,for now i agree with his a priori approach.Pussy cats and dogs are naturally nocturnal and were went to be hunters before the dominance of humankind found the audacity to domesticate them.And yes they possess vision 20/20.Their eyes were designed for hunting.There is a built-in super sense of smell that emanates from a predominant purposes of hunting for survival.
For interest sake:A dog can distinguish between caprylic acid(an 8 carbon saturated fatty acid,found in coconut,breast milk,etc) and caproic,in highly diluted solutions.The only difference between these two acids is an extra pair of carbon atoms on the chain.In fact dogs are also used by the narcotics department to detect fraudulent smuggling of drugs at airports.This is the simple reason why dogs are always disturbed and bucking for no apparent reason.They smell and see things from afar.
A priori will tell you that the reason why dogs look away when you stare them in the eye is because they are shy.That's bull dust.A mild empiricist will say that they look away because staring is perceived as dominant behaviour and sometimes a threat.
A 14 century English logician William of Ockham is renowned for the occam razor hypothesis.The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make a few assumptions as possible,eliminating those that make no difference in observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis.
Occam's razor tells us to 'not multiply entities unnecessarily',that is if there are two ways to explain something,the one that requires us to assume the existence of as few things as possible is the most likely true.Cats are often scared of vacuum cleaners.One way to explain this is that it might be simply frightened of the sound,perceiving it as a threatening roar.Another is to assume that he hears ghosts in it,which requires the assumption that humans have spirits which live in vacuum cleaners.By using Occam's razor,i would assume the first one is correct.
Simplicity is evidence for truth.But an empiricist ought to challenge me on that.
So cats and dogs see nothing except that they were meant to be hunting in the jungle
Goodnight all
You mentioned that Karin said,cats see the true colour of grass better than humans.Of course,for now i agree with his a priori approach.Pussy cats and dogs are naturally nocturnal and were went to be hunters before the dominance of humankind found the audacity to domesticate them.And yes they possess vision 20/20.Their eyes were designed for hunting.There is a built-in super sense of smell that emanates from a predominant purposes of hunting for survival.
For interest sake:A dog can distinguish between caprylic acid(an 8 carbon saturated fatty acid,found in coconut,breast milk,etc) and caproic,in highly diluted solutions.The only difference between these two acids is an extra pair of carbon atoms on the chain.In fact dogs are also used by the narcotics department to detect fraudulent smuggling of drugs at airports.This is the simple reason why dogs are always disturbed and bucking for no apparent reason.They smell and see things from afar.
A priori will tell you that the reason why dogs look away when you stare them in the eye is because they are shy.That's bull dust.A mild empiricist will say that they look away because staring is perceived as dominant behaviour and sometimes a threat.
A 14 century English logician William of Ockham is renowned for the occam razor hypothesis.The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make a few assumptions as possible,eliminating those that make no difference in observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis.
Occam's razor tells us to 'not multiply entities unnecessarily',that is if there are two ways to explain something,the one that requires us to assume the existence of as few things as possible is the most likely true.Cats are often scared of vacuum cleaners.One way to explain this is that it might be simply frightened of the sound,perceiving it as a threatening roar.Another is to assume that he hears ghosts in it,which requires the assumption that humans have spirits which live in vacuum cleaners.By using Occam's razor,i would assume the first one is correct.
Simplicity is evidence for truth.But an empiricist ought to challenge me on that.
So cats and dogs see nothing except that they were meant to be hunting in the jungle
Goodnight all
Tuesday 3 March 2009
Royal prerogative
It was quite a fascinating stock taking exercise of the Royal family today.I guess everyone who attended the lecture has a different perspective of the elected dictatorship.These protestants defied catholic fellowship after King Henry v11 divorced his wife for 24years, Catherine because five of her children had died at birth.To add insult into injury,when the pontiff denied to preside over a second marriage,Henry deviated to become the head of the church of England.With one motive in mind - to marry his newly found mistress.Absolute power corrupts;an act of settlement was formulated in 1701 to condemn catholic beliefs within the monarchy.
This act lays down that only protestant heirs of Princess Sophia,granddaughter of James 1 may succeed in Britain.
Thank God that when the Magna carta was signed,it moved most of the power to parliament.Now the queen is just a figurehead for ceremonial purposes and knighting over-achievers like Gordon Fucken' Ramsay who had a 'glorious' fucken' football career at 'Rangers'.
But don't take the gloss off the crown of the queen as yet because when parliament decides to make laws ,she still has to 'sign' for approval.If she doesn't happen to like the new law and rejects it,she may have a rebellion on her hands as parliament is voted in by the people.
As Horrie alluded in the lecture,the Prime minister is a representative of the royal family in parliament and works hand in hand with the privy council.Don't be fooled by the word privy,it's informal for private or secret.Whatever is discussed with the head of the state remains classified information.Even if members of the privy council might know who killed Diana,they can not run to the news of the world and sell the story for personal gain - because they will be in contempt of the official secrets act.
I also discovered that the queen is currently paying income tax and capital gains on a voluntary basis,since 1992.So who are we to complain about tax if the sovereign herself is paying?
The good news on monarchy power is that the queen can not by law elect William in place of Charles as the new king of England.Her powers are quite limited in that respect.
So the real people who run this country are based at whitehall and westminister respectively.
I am only waiting for Henry(harry) to be king and turn that royal Buckingham palace into a night club and throw the significance of a monarchy into mock despair.I am really worried that i might not live to see him reign because he is just third in line and there is a receding hope that he will ever be one.
This act lays down that only protestant heirs of Princess Sophia,granddaughter of James 1 may succeed in Britain.
Thank God that when the Magna carta was signed,it moved most of the power to parliament.Now the queen is just a figurehead for ceremonial purposes and knighting over-achievers like Gordon Fucken' Ramsay who had a 'glorious' fucken' football career at 'Rangers'.
But don't take the gloss off the crown of the queen as yet because when parliament decides to make laws ,she still has to 'sign' for approval.If she doesn't happen to like the new law and rejects it,she may have a rebellion on her hands as parliament is voted in by the people.
As Horrie alluded in the lecture,the Prime minister is a representative of the royal family in parliament and works hand in hand with the privy council.Don't be fooled by the word privy,it's informal for private or secret.Whatever is discussed with the head of the state remains classified information.Even if members of the privy council might know who killed Diana,they can not run to the news of the world and sell the story for personal gain - because they will be in contempt of the official secrets act.
I also discovered that the queen is currently paying income tax and capital gains on a voluntary basis,since 1992.So who are we to complain about tax if the sovereign herself is paying?
The good news on monarchy power is that the queen can not by law elect William in place of Charles as the new king of England.Her powers are quite limited in that respect.
So the real people who run this country are based at whitehall and westminister respectively.
I am only waiting for Henry(harry) to be king and turn that royal Buckingham palace into a night club and throw the significance of a monarchy into mock despair.I am really worried that i might not live to see him reign because he is just third in line and there is a receding hope that he will ever be one.
In fact ,who is English?
On the balance of probability ,no one is English and curse my unorthodox view if you are bothered.Hold on - i can give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they can prove themselves innocent until proven guilty.I am prosecuting those who claim to be English for the sake of 'immigrants' - Polish included.
I submit that English is one of the many languages of West German.In fact it was brought to this land by German settlers.The migration from German after the ice age might have been triggered by incursions of the Huns and population pressures.
Last week's lecture by Chris might have provoked a few patriotic fellows and raised eyebrows on the legitimacy of the rightful owners of this land.My reservations on the evolution of the English Monarch reveal that a majority of the people who ruled were not 'English'.Henry Tudor who reigned as Henry v11 was in reality Welsh;William of Orange who ruled as William 111,was dutch;Elizabeth 1 who died a virgin in the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty ,indirectly handed power to her cousin James 1,who was scottish.Through out the period of regicide,this land was under a constant rule of 'foreigners'.
What puzzles me is whether an Englishman is a German by default who got persecuted and fled to this land.
I know the truth hates but in reality,it sets you free.So know your history and be vigilant.I traced mine and discovered that all people in Southern Africa originated in central africa,but were too weak to fight - thus were kept on the run ,until they reached the Cape of good hope.
In closing this prosecution you are all Germans - prove me wrong!
I submit that English is one of the many languages of West German.In fact it was brought to this land by German settlers.The migration from German after the ice age might have been triggered by incursions of the Huns and population pressures.
Last week's lecture by Chris might have provoked a few patriotic fellows and raised eyebrows on the legitimacy of the rightful owners of this land.My reservations on the evolution of the English Monarch reveal that a majority of the people who ruled were not 'English'.Henry Tudor who reigned as Henry v11 was in reality Welsh;William of Orange who ruled as William 111,was dutch;Elizabeth 1 who died a virgin in the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty ,indirectly handed power to her cousin James 1,who was scottish.Through out the period of regicide,this land was under a constant rule of 'foreigners'.
What puzzles me is whether an Englishman is a German by default who got persecuted and fled to this land.
I know the truth hates but in reality,it sets you free.So know your history and be vigilant.I traced mine and discovered that all people in Southern Africa originated in central africa,but were too weak to fight - thus were kept on the run ,until they reached the Cape of good hope.
In closing this prosecution you are all Germans - prove me wrong!
Mitigating for Mugabe.
We have the autonomy to choose our friends but we can't choose our neighbours and if i had a way i would have unanimously opted for Vladimir Putin - to Mugabe.Now Morgan Tsvangirai,a former trade unionist who gatecrashed his way into politics,carrying only a diploma in international governance aquire through distance education - got bullied under duress by his rival Mugabe in signing a deal that never was.The impasse has finally come to rest with a new government of national unity in place.
Millions of victims crippled by cholera and poverty crossed over to South Africa.Today i am writing to mitigate for Mugabe and stand by him for the failed state he created with the help of the British.
The man has been in power since 1980 - after defeating Ian Smith's regime through gorilla warfare,with the support of Cuba and South Korea.He quickly adopted the socialistic and nationalistic ideologies.Of course,the eloquent but ruthless scholar had paid ten years of his life in prison.A forged cease-fire by the British government,led to the Lancaster House agreement where a deal was signed under the supervision of Lord Carrington.The British government in tandem with the Americans promised to buy land from the white farmers who were not willing to reconcile with the custodians of the land - willing buyer ,willing seller.
Mugabe's bid to forgive and forget the past never materialised because of a few minority who were non-repented.In 1990 he tried the land reform programme,but was halted by the African National Congress Party in South Africa,as they were so close to defeating apartheid.Of course,the move paid dividends,as Nelson Mandela was released from Robben Island the same year.
In 1995 Zimbabwe's economy started to plummet and the international monetary fund suggested a recovery plan called (The economic structural adjustment programme),which subsequently led to the devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar.
Out of desperation Mugabe pursued the land reform programme - in trying to force the British government to compensate the white farmers who owned at least two thirds of the country's arable land.Tony Blair and the back benchers at Westminister angered Mugabe by denying to honour,the Labour Party's promise to compensate as agreed at the Lancaster House conference in 1979 .So his militias ran rampage and seized all the farms - which led to a mass exodus of farmers to England,Australia and New Zealand.
Smart sanctions by the EU meant Mugabe and his cabinet ministers were automatically barred from travelling to Europe.But who suffered ?The poor Zimbabwean people.
Ango-American and bluechip companies pulled out of Zimbabwe in protest of the Mugabe regime.Mass unemployment followed and Zimbawe became a disaster.
Because Tsvangirai was bankrolled by the british government: Mugabe was very cautious after losing the general election.This dinosaur doesn't trust the British because of a long history of unfulfilled promises in the past.
What people must realise is that Mugabe is the only surviving student of Mao,Mussolini,Hitler and Idi Amin(who fed his opponents to the crocodiles in Uganda).
So Tsvangirai deserves to be grabbed down under.
Monday 2 March 2009
Nostradamus or Arnold Muchoko - choose who to believe
In the city of God there will be a great thunder,two twin brothers between two rivers will be torn apart by chaos,while the fortress endures,the great leader will succumb.The third big war will begin when the city is burning - tha says Nostradamus.
The World watched in disbelief,as two twin towers(World trade centre),between two rivers - Hudson and River east fell apart within minutes after a devastating suicide attack by jihad fanatics,so we thought.This was an apparent fulfillment of prophecies and predictions made by Nostradamus in the 15th century.
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day ,with a world in it's sleep,Islam will eclipse christianity,and all other religions will fall prey to Islamic dogma - tha says Arnold Muchoko.
When the 1976 uprising ensued throughout the marginalised township of Soweto,i was still in the production line,somewhere in my fathers groin - not quite sure where?Hector Pieterson was the first riot victim,so i was told.In spite of being born in a nation full of hatred and resentment towards one another,i embraced christianity from a very innocent age.I remember my boarding master,forcing us to sing,What a friend we have in Jesus - a song written by a scottish fellow Joseph Scriven,in a letter to console his mother who was in pain.The words in the song became our school anthem for the productive years i spent at a secluded primary school.Every school day would be kick-started by prayer and the song ,inside the assembly hall.At times,i would sit on the corner of my single bed and read books like,The river between,Things fall apart,Coming of the dry season and House of Hunger.For i was preparing myself for a life in literature.But the doctrines of christianity had taught me that reading too much literature would make me an antagonist of the holy book.
Now as Britain,America and allies fight the Taliban in Afghanistan,the underground network is busy forcing amendments to the existing acts to suite,what prophet Muhammed,said'Islam will rule the world'.If you happen to fly to Johannesburg at our main airport,there are toilets labelled 'Moslem toilets only'.Our Parliament used to be opened by a word of prayer - but now the constitution has been changed to accommodate Moslems.The trend has moved to England ,America and other countries.Now you can't publicly talk about your faith and brag about being a christian - the reason-you are likely to provoke Islam.My prediction is that in 100years from now,christians will be a minority.
Christianity is so much divided to return the dignity it once commanded.Now gays and women are being ordained to be preachers of the word.That entirely contradicts what the bible they believe in ,says.In the Moslem world none of the above will have the right to stand before innocent followers of the word and deliver,repentance and redemption.It is taboo in the Moslem ideology.When Moslems go to Mecca(a 'holy' city of Islam in Saudi Arabia),they do so in millions.Now that is what i call faith.Christians have so many denominations,teaching the same word but in different version.The gathering of the Moslems in Mecca can never,and will never be matched by Christians for a single pilgrimage because they are so much divided.
I am not about to turn Moslem,and i will not swop my christianity for anything - but i am just a realist.And my christian faith rebukes me for assuming that Islam will rule.Christianity is now too commercialised that it has lost its purpose.
I have nothing against women preachers or Gay preachers - but where is it written in all your books of faith,your bible and even the Qur'an?
Modern day christians pray whilst standing and their eyes open.Surely the culture is gone and might soon be in oblivion.All this is done by charismatics.If they say God never changes,today,tomorrow and forever,Why change the way of praying because of commerce?In essence when moslems fast,they do a dry fast.But christians have modified it,by saying you can have a cup of tea and fruit.That's bullshit.No wonder why Islam has now over a billion followers.
As i write ,i am inspired to do so by the all mighty - for greater is he that is in me than the one that i see.
Nostradamus predicted in the 15th century and it happened in the 21st century.My prediction is work in progress,so stay alive for another 100 years to see the manifestation.Afterall how can you believe Nostradamus who you never saw in real life - than Arnold Muchoko who you are privileged to know and see?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
