British subsea technology firm Ashtead Technology on Wednesday ​said it has received a ‌non-binding indicative proposal from Ember Infrastructure Management that values the company ​at about £498 million ($659.75 million).

British subsea technology firm Ashtead Technology on Wednesday ​said it has received a ‌non-binding indicative proposal from Ember Infrastructure Management that values the company ​at about £498 million ($659.75 million).

Iran in their underground Fort. These commanders fell in battle, but the war goes on > “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” > – Samuel P. Huntington The White Empire took Asia by taking and remaking its forts, using superior cannon and siege weaponry. The Portuguese took the Strait of Hormuz in 1515 and the British took Perim in Bab el Mandeb in 1799 and they are only now being wrested free. How? The same way they were tooken. With superior forts, cannon, and siege weaponry. Iran and the Axis of Resistance have redefined forts as being underground. Under entire mountains, as in Iran and Yemen, or even under a concentration camp as in Palestine, these have proven to be superior. We had forts before, but the colonizer always wrested them. Now the modern underground fort has been tested in war, and bested them. The Axis of Resistance has also redefined cannon. While the Empire drifted away from land-based cannon, because they were always bombing people far from home, the people of the land innovated on them. Now Iran and Yemen have 'cannon' that can be fired from its mountain fortresses and quickly withdrawn, and the 'cannonball' can find their targets from across continents. It's a brave new day and the cowardly colonizers have little or nothing to do with it. As Samuel P. Huntington said, the White Empire won the world by its _superiority in applying organized violence_ and it loses it the same way. To superior, well-organized violence. A 21st century shift in weapons and tactics that they're on the wrong side of. The Empire occupied and monopolized trade around the world using fortresses and cannon and they lose their occupation bases and monopolies to _superior_ cannon and fortress. As the Axis of Resistance has proven. ## Historical Background I will speak somewhat from memory here because Sri Lanka is dotted with forts (Galle, Matara, Jaffna, Mannar, Colombo), still with their cannon. I have a lived memory of them, and know how they changed hands over and over. First the Portugeuse, the Dutch, then the British. The cannon always pointed outwards, because they fought amongst each other, but the fortress was always there for our plundering. Now the Americans do it from a giant embassy, but it's the same thing. These forts have been here so long that it's easy to think that this is the _only_ way to trade. Like that new Jewish saying, _'if I don't steal it, someone else will.'_ But this tyrannical sort of trade is, in fact, profoundly unnatural. People traded fine around the Indian Ocean before the White Empire fortressified everything. We had Tamil sailors manning Chinese boats, coins from the Roman Empire, goods from the Muslim World. I'm not saying that people didn't fight, but there wasn't a monopoly of violence across the entire ocean. It's not some natural law that you need to trade this way, it is, in fact, a historical anomaly. Speaking from Sri Lanka, the entire Indian Ocean has a longer history of trade that was just, trade. Zheng He (a Chinese Muslim) came here in the 1420s and gave us stuff. Ibn Battuta came even earlier in the 1300s, marking our connection to the Muslim World. We have had trade with India since time immemorial. None of these traders set up forts to violently extort us because they were _traders_. They had stuff and exchanged it, quite often _more_ stuff __ than us. Zheng He really just left _gifts_ and bounced. Unlike broke-ass Europeans (not coincidentally turned white because they had so little solar energy), people in what's now called the Global South had plentiful energy (recorded on our coincidentally colored skin) and could trade amongs ourselves without depending on coercion. Always remember this, we didn't come looking for them, they came looking for us. When the energy poor Europeans came here they actually didn't have much to trade with. All the violent tribes of Europe had to offer us was superior violence, so they took. Beginning with the Portugeuse they _locked down_ trade using violence, such extraordinary violence that it required extraordinary cannon and forts. Then they monopolized our trade _amongst each other_ (White people don't even use spices) and started sucking the profits (ie, energy) north. The Whites fought amongst each other for this monopoly trade so long that we think this it the only way to trade, _but it's not_. Such unnatural trade was only held in place by artificial violence. But nature is healing, _inshallah_. What Iran is establishing is trade outside of this monopoly of violence. All Yemen wants is the same, the right to move around and exist on their own terms. Same for China, same for Russia, North Korea, Cuba, et cetera. _This_ is what unites all of the White Empire's enemies, not their political systems, not their religion, not freedom or human rights or any other such marketing phrases used by inveterate slavers and inhuman corporations. The White Empire is run by Corporate AI, not humans, and it's never been personal, it's strictly business. They want a monopoly on trade and they attack any independent nation that threatens this. When they first arrived, we hadn't evolved the organized violence to fight them because for centuries _we hadn't needed it_. Why would China need to violently impose trade with Sri Lanka when they had more stuff __ than us? They could just come here and trade stuff normally, which they mostly didn't because they simply weren't interested. Why would the Muslim World pepper us with forts? We were happy to trade pepper for their fancy system. It's only when broke-ass Europeans came that they broke the system, and quite effectively played us against each other. There was a _huge_ amount of energy released by them networking the continents (in their desparation) and for a brief period (500 years) they were able to profit from being middlemen with superior violence. Other people had, of course, evolved mostly land-based violence, but no one else was this aggressively amphibious (and later, avariciously avian). At the beginning Whites (their energy poverty reflected on their skin) had little to trade but organized violence and weapons, which is to say they didn't trade they're terrorized and took shit. Remember, they came looking for us, we didn't come looking for them! Much of the trade that enriched Europe wasn't between us and them, but between _ourselves_ , with them monopolizing the profits. For example, the Whites grew opium in India to violently force on China. Warmer peoples never resorted to such lows as inter-continental drug dealing _because we were not that broke_. We were really not prepared for the violence that came out of the Asian ghetto called Europe. **I can still see that violence dotted around my island as forts, and the historical lesson I learned over and over was that they fought over these forts, and whoever held the fort won.** That's how Sri Lanka passed from the Portugeuse to the Dutch to the British to now the Americans (their Embassy is horrifyingly large). They _violently_ controlled trade not just with them (which was negligible at first) but with each other (which was a lot, literally the world). The controlled trade with sieges then, now with sanctions, but it's the same phenomenon. Coming to its natural denounement. After many millions dead and the climate burning, unfortunately. Shout-out the whales, also, they got it the worst. That's why what Iran, Yemen and the Axis of Resistance is doing is so important, led by the heroes of Palestine of course. They are taking the Empire's forts, one by one. They very physical occupation they girded us with. And they are outshooting the Empire's cannon, silencing the guns they used to extort the world. What Russia and China are doing is also important, one in hot war and the other trade war, a revenge best served cold. They are showing us that trade and development is possible with or without the Empire, and even against its worst intentions. It's taken long centuries but the natives are relentless and nature is healing, _inshallah_. ## Present Foreground That's the historical background, I guess, did I digress? Let's connect it back to the present, the rise of Bab el Mandeb to the Yemeni and the Strait of Hormuz to the Iranians, long centuries since losing them. Previously, I've spoken about how the Axis of Resistance is winning the missile and tunnel wars, ushering in a new paradigm of warfare. But is it really so new? What is a missile but a cannonball and what is a tunnel but a deeper fort? Yes, it's still just cannon and forts, the age-old battle betwixt shield and sword. The Persian Gulf is lost the same way the Portugeuse took it, through cannon and fort. This was how they held power and how they lose it. This is the only language colonizers understand, superior violence. The great innovation of 21st century warfare has been _tunnel_ forts and smart missiles (and drones). Palestine first showed it, in their daring escape from and resistance from _under_ the concentration camp the Whites made of Gaza. Then Yemen showed the same model when they defeated the US Navy in the Red Sea. And Iran demonstrated the same thing when they not only held Iran but destroyed all the US bases surrounding them. The Portuguese conquered Hormuz in _1515_ and it's taken over 500 years to get it back! But we got it, homies, we got it. And these guys have changed history. Can you believe it? I see the same damned Portugeuse Fort in my own country, built by slave labor, passed among Whites so they can rape us, and I have to pinch myself. It's really happening. We're finally beating them. In West Asia, sure, but I'll take it as an Asian. The White Empire today is still dependent on 20th century weapons which are, in many cases, _worse_ than 15th century ones. Modern American forts are exposed containers and just regular buildings out in the sun. Their old forts were stone while the new ones are basically cardboard. And they do not have much modern cannon at all, they got so used to strafing the poor from air cavalry that their missile technology has barely evolved. **For many years the Empire has ruled by fiat, not forts, sanctions, not sieges.** I usually say it's the same thing because it has the same effects, but these are not the same _causes_. The White Empire has ruled for decades not by the consent of the government but by the lack of concerted opposition. Iran accepted American bases across the Persian Gulf and other countries accepted American sanctions. People, more than we should have, forgave and were content to live under the White Empire. Iran wanted to lift sanctions through negotiation, Russia broached joining NATO, China preaches win-win at ever occassion. Despite them being degenerate thieves and rapists, we gave the White Empire every chance to preside as elder statesman, but they can't do it. White supremacy is the only content to White Empire and they have to go out the way they came in, violently. They know no other language. Since the White Empire monopolized global trade it was held by force, literally by forts. And if you didn't like it you didn't get missives, you got missiles down the throat. This was the deal and they held it even after they lost the power to enforce it, by sheer inertia. I think there remained that foolish idea that Whites could become human and just trade like normal people if we gave them long enough but they can't and they won't and they forced the point themselves, by starting multiple land wars in Asia. The force was implied, but the minute they made it explicit, everyone could see that they were a spent farce. Now they're losing fortress Ukraine in North West Asia and every base in South West Asia and can't even start in East Asia, though I don't put anything past them, who knows. They monopolized global trade using superior violence, made real through unassailable forts and assault weapons, and they lose their monopoly the same way, to superior tunnel forts and missiles and drones. But lose to what? ## What Comes Next The common thinking among even avowed anti-imperialists is still basically imperialist. They think some empire has to replace this one, like the succession of Portugeuse, Dutch, British, inscribed in Sri Lanka's historical forts and collective trauma. _If I don't steal it, someone else will_ , as the new Jewish saying goes, or 'the dark forest theory' of Liu Cixin's _Three Body Problem_ books. But this thinking is a historical anomaly we need to think beyond now. You can't be an anti-imperialist imperialist, but you can try and be yourself, in your own land, without hegemony imposed by air and sea. Land-based empires, forts, trade wars, fine, that sort of fighting goes on all the time. But networks of naval bases to monopolize global trade? That's an anomaly that's seen its time. No one monopolized trade in the Indian Ocean the way the Whites did. Violent trade monopolies are not a necessary evil, they're just evil. I'm not saying there weren't trade disputes and that there wasn't violence and conquest, I'm saying that there wasn't a _monopoly_ of violence sold as peace and a monopoly of conquest sold as freedom. There wasn't one energy flow with most surplus going north (the unipolar world), there was lots of trade going across, in a multipolar world. And that is what we can and _inshallah_ are returning to. Iran is not replacing the Persian Gulf bases (though I think those borders certainly need to be redrawn, make UAE Oman again and, hell, make Saudi Yemeni). If you look at the way the Axis of Resistance is structured, it's not proxies and buffer states like the Empire does (and accuses everybody else of). Iran is not trying to dominate Yemen, on the other side of the horn. And if you look at the way China operates, they're not monopolistic with its Belt and Road. And Russia isn't owning the new Arctic route. Everyone is trying to just do their own thing, and what the vanguard in Yemen is saying is either everyone can trade or no one can trade. This is kinda the way it was before. And this is possible. This is what is at stake in World War III. The White Empire is fighting to hold on to the world by force, and the world is struggling to be free many different ways at once. There is no particular alliance between everyone fighting America, but they are all fighting for the same thing. Freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom from a monopoly of trade, that says everything has to go through them. And how is that freedom won? The same way it was lost, through cannon and fort.

From this year, British taxpayers will be funding a school in Barnet where girls as young as seven are required to wear the hijab. Labour-run Barnet Council has quietly approved voluntary-aided status for Barnet Hill Academy. In this previously independent Islamic faith school, the hijab is compulsory uniform for girls as young as seven. ### This is utterly wrong. Barnet Council says that non-Muslim pupils will not be required to wear the hijab. ### TRENDING Stories Videos Your Say ### But that is not what the school’s published uniform policy says. Nowhere does the policy state non-Muslim girls are exempt. Instead, it simply states the hijab is “compulsory” for girls from Year 3 and lists it alongside the other required items of school uniform. And in any event, what if a Muslim girl does not want to wear a hijab? ### ### ### A council spokesman has nevertheless insisted the policy is “legally compliant and non-compulsory for non-Muslim pupils”. It is not clear what has led them to that conclusion. It raises serious questions about what scrutiny Labour-run Barnet Council carried out before approving the school’s move into the state-funded sector, what assurances it sought about the uniform policy, and on what basis it can now tell the public that the policy is legally compliant. The council’s own language makes this decision even harder to understand. ### LATEST DEVELOPMENTS * Labour council confronted over school forcing female pupils to wear hijabs: 'Deeply concerning!' * Adil Ray wades into burqa ban row as he fumes 'Muslim women are singled out!' * Portugal BANS full-face veils in public under 'burka law' ### ### Its written judgement praised the school’s “inclusive policies” and said they supported the “elimination of discrimination”, as well as the “advancement of equality of opportunity”. However, the policy it approved appears to impose a religious dress requirement on girls while their male classmates face no equivalent obligation. How is this equality? I have written, alongside Joy Morrissey, our shadow equalities minister, to the council to seek answers to all these questions. ### ### Schools should be places where children learn, girls are given the same freedom and opportunity as boys and the values of our country are upheld. No women or girls should be forced to cover their hair in this country, least of all by a school. Many GB News readers will rightly be up in arms that this is what their money is now going towards. It betrays British values. ### ### This should never happen in a British state school. And under the Conservatives, it would not. ### **Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter**

King Charles III has only been king for four years but he has managed to screw up 505 years of British history by his dropping of the ‘Defender of the Faith’ title. The title ‘Defender of the Faith’ was conferred on King Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X, after he had written a treatise against Martin Luther, comparing him to Cerberus of Greek mythology, the three-headed dog guarding the gates of Hades to prevent the dead from returning from the underworld. A schism occurred between the Catholic Church and King Henry VIII when Pope Clement refused to grant a divorce between the king and Catherine of Aragon. Later the king was excommunicated by Pope Paul III. Needless to say, the king lost his title of ‘Defender of the Faith’ but in 1543 parliament reinstated the title for British kings. Despite hundreds of years of British history for this title, squeezed into, or some say hidden, in the Royal Sovereign Report, was the repudiation of this title in favour of making spaces for all religions and becoming ‘Defender of all Faiths’. Windsor advisors possibly thought that the Megan Markle debacle of ‘will she or won’t she come to Britain’ would deflect the mainstream media, which it did. Dan Wootton says this decision by the king has been taken without any consultation and as Constitutional Monarch surely parliament and therefore the people would have to approve. Plus at his coronation he put his right hand on the Bible and took an oath before God that he would be ‘Defender of the Faith’, which is the Church of England. Rupert Lowe of Restore has opined that it is ludicrous to be a defender of all faiths, as some are totally opposed to other faiths. For instance Muslims do not believe Jesus Christ is God and Muhammad came along 500 years after Christ to try to press the point home. Mike Graham of _Talk TV_ reiterates this by pointing out that wherever Muslims settle their religion has to predominate. It’s not as if we haven’t been aware of Charles’ infatuation with Islam. As far back as 1993, when he was then the Prince of Wales and Patron of Islamic Studies at Oxford University, he gave a lecture on Islam and the West...You can imagine the rosy picture he presented of Islam, which according to him had helped civilise Europe, and Christianity was the poorer for not recognising it. He was gone-burger even then, but most of us thought he would get over it. Far from getting over it, he continued his fawning over the Muslims and even invited them to the palace for a celebratory Eid. His sop to Christianity was his Maundy Thursday service, a Christian feast, but he couldn’t get through it without mentioning his beloved Muslims. As Jeff Taylor on his podcast asks: Why import millions of people into your country who hate you, through open borders and small boat crossings? It’s a ‘mad man’s dream’ to think there will be peaceful co-existence with Islam. Even non-Christians are screaming on social media that King Charles III has destroyed 1400 years of Christian values that helped make Britain great and produced an Empire on which the sun never set. Charles has declared war on Christianity and some now even consider him to be the new antichrist. After the ‘vexed vicar’ Chris Wickland organised a protest at Windsor Castle while the king was there, he received half-a-million hits on his site, something he has never experienced before. Fr Calvin Robinson went even further on Dan Wootton’s show and said the king should be dethroned and added that 100 years ago a traitorous king like Charles would be in the Tower. In 1953 at Queen Elisabeth II’s coronation, a stanza was played from the national anthem that is no longer included, but perhaps we need it now more than ever. Our Lord our God arise, Scatter His enemies and make them fall, Confound their politics, Frustrate their Knavish tricks, On thee our hopes we fix, God save us all!

US defence secretary cancelled appearance at D-day event in Langrune-sur-Mer after protest by residents

Development Cogs Extended reading and study of non-fiction texts provide a powerful and evidence-based method for teaching PSHE, SMSC, British Values, and Citizenship topics.This approach simultaneous...

ALT: Tinseley Mortimer Says 'So Disgusting'

Sikh organizations across the UK have issued a public statement urging people not to link the Sikh faith with the ongoing murder trial linked to the death of 18-year-old University of Southampton student Henry Nowak.The statement, issued by the British Sikh Federation, expressed its condolences to Nowak's family and described the incident as inconsistent with Sikh teachings and values.“On behalf of Sikh organizations and communities across the country, we express our deepest condolences for the tragic loss of life,” the statement read.“Our thoughts and prayers remain with Novak’s family and loved ones during this extremely difficult time.”The organizations said the case should not be used to make broader assumptions about Sikh beliefs or religious practices.