Islamic Dog Hatred & Animal Rights Activists’ Silence

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


[Note: in the above video two German Shepherd dogs are attacked and pelted with bricks by Muslims in a street of Casablanca, Morocco.]


In the UK a Muslim taxi driver recently refused to give a lift to a disabled woman's dog, alleging that it broke the rules of Ramadan. Despite the fact that by law no taxi driver can refuse to carry a disabled passenger or assistance animal unless he is medically exempt, the man has not lost his taxi licence and has not been fired. The owner of the taxi firm said he would respect the driver's religious beliefs.

This is not the first time and won’t be the last that Islamic and Western attitudes to dogs conflict.

There have been many cases, both in Europe and North America, of Muslim taxi and bus drivers refusing to let dogs in – even guide dogs for the blind –, of police not letting dogs near Muslim suspects or prisoners, of Muslim prison inmates being given new clothes and bedding after police sniffer dogs search their cells, of dogs being banned from touching copies of the Quran and other Islamic items in prison cells, of sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at train stations no longer allowed to come into contact with Muslim passengers and fitted with leather bootees to cover their paws when searching mosques and Muslim homes, of blind or disabled people accompanied by dogs facing Muslim hostility in hospitals, supermarkets and from Muslim bus passengers or turned away from restaurants, of Western citizens being handcuffed and threatened with arrest for walking leashed and well-behaved dogs close to Muslim rallies: the list could go on.

Pronouncements about dogs are not in the Quran but are numerous in the various hadiths, collections of traditions containing sayings and deeds of the prophet Muhammad which form the basis of Islamic law.

Dogs for Muslims are "impure", “unclean” and “evil”. For example, the Muslim website Islam Q&A says:

It is not permissible for a Muslim to keep a dog, unless he needs this dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops…

With regard to keeping dogs, this is haraam [forbidden by God] and is in fact a major sin, because the one who keeps a dog, except those for which an exception has been made, will have two qiraats [a measure of rewards for good actions] deducted from his reward every day.

It is by the wisdom of Allaah that like calls to like and evil calls to evil. It is said that the kaafirs, Jews, Christians and communists in the east and the west all keep dogs, Allaah forbid. Each one takes his dog with him and cleans it every day with soap and other cleansing agents. But even if he were to clean it with the water of all the seas in the world and all the soap in the world, it would never become pure! Because its impurity is inherent, and inherent impurity cannot be cleansed except by destroying it and erasing it altogether.

Another Islamic site, Albalagh, explains:

Jibra'eel (Álayhi Salaam) said that we, the group of Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or pictures. (Sahih Muslim Hadith no.3928)

In the light of these Ahaadith and other narrations it is not permissible to keep dogs as pets. The household is deprived of the Mercy of Allah Taãla.

While this is from Islamic Concern:

Religious traditions hold that if a dog - or woman - passes in front of you as you prepare to pray, it pollutes your purity and negates your prayer. Dogs are permissible as watchdogs or for other utilitarian purposes but not simply for companionship. Abou El Fadl says this zealous adherence to doctrine led one religious authority to advise a Muslim that his pet dog was evil and should be driven away by cutting off its food and water.

Hasan Küçük, a city councillor for the Islam Democrats in The Hague, the Netherland’s third city, even proposed that the city banned all dogs, promptly rebuked by Paul ter Linden, the councillor for Geert Wilders’ PVV party, who told him: “In this country pet ownership is legal. Whoever disagrees with this should move to another country.”

What is interesting is the reaction – or rather lack thereof – of the animal rights movement, too afraid, if it means touching Islamic sensitivities, to speak up even for animals.

The Dutch Party for the Animals started the controversy by proposing to make The Hague more dog friendly, meeting the strong opposition of Küçük, who in response called for dog ownership in The Hague to be criminalized.

The Dutch Party for the Animals, with 2 of the 150 seats in Holland’s House of Representatives, 1 of the 75 seats in the Senate and other 20 seats in provincial and local councils, is the most successful party of its kind in the world. If you search “Islam” on its site, you find the word only in reference to Geert Wilders or his PVV party, to castigate them for “unnecessarily” upsetting Muslims.

“Halal”, “Muslim” and “Islam” do not appear at all on the site of its British equivalent, the Animal Welfare Party (AWP), that describes itself as “The UK Political Party for People, Animals and the Environment” but is all these things, we should add, only when it does not offend Muslims.

Even considering only the two areas of halal and treatment of dogs, there is plenty to keep a true political party or association for animal rights well occupied with the problems and threats that Islam generates for creatures. But clearly this does not happen.

A Google search I made on the Animal Welfare Party’s website in 2010 did return a result for “Islam”. The site’s only reference to Islam was on a page, which has now been removed, commenting on the outcome of the Dutch general election held in June that year.

The AWP people were “obviously shocked by the PVV victory” but congratulated the voters because they showed to be

fed up with Christian politcs [sic] which only focused on protection of short-term human interests ahead of nature and the environment.

A coalition will be difficult, and fingers crossed it won’t be a coalition of VVD (right wing liberals), PVV (anti-islam party for freedom) and CDA (Christian Democrats) but rather a centrist (with Green Left) coalition.

It appeared that for the AWP (which was then called “Animals Count”), being anti-Islam was a no-no, but being anti-Christianity was perfectly kosher.

They were more shocked by the victory of the “anti-islam party for freedom” (which is not its name, anyway, its English translation being “Party for Freedom”) than by the way Muslims treat animals in Holland.

The problem here is that both the UK and the Dutch animal parties have a problem in deciding - or maybe have already wrongly decided - who their enemies and allies are.

It all depends on what their goals are.

If their goal is political correctness, their friends are the Muslims (including Hasan Küçük, the Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council calling for a ban on all the city's dogs) and their enemies are the PVV.

If their goal is improving the animals' condition, then the exact reverse is the case: not only Küçük opposed the Party for the Animals' proposal to make The Hague more dog friendly by calling instead for the dogs' extermination (I wonder how else he could have banned them) or at least removal from their homes and human companions, but Paul ter Linden of the PVV told him what the Animals’ Party should have told him: here in Holland we love dogs and, if you don’t like it, leave.

He was the only one who defended the dogs, the only one who had the courage to stand up to the Muslims without fear of being called "Islamophobe".

In substance, the Dutch self-proclaimed Party for the Animals supports the enemies of animals and attacks the protectors of animals.

I think that we'll see more and more of these cases, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Then we'll see where the "animal defenders" will really stand, if they consider their Leftist ideology more important than the animals' well-being or not.

Just in the same way as European police, social services, school teachers and even parents are prepared to throw children under the bus, so animal rights people are ready to sacrifice animals: not being considered racist or Islamophobic is more important for all of them.

That this is the case is obvious from the way groups for animal welfare are – and want to remain - blissfully ignorant of what Islam is, the threat that its growth poses to the West and in particular the danger that Islamization represents for animals.

There’s hardly any point in fighting for the advancement in the status of animals in law and public conscience when in a few decades our countries will regress to being dominated by a 7th-century cult replete with superstitions about black dogs and whose “religious” festivals are celebrated by slaughtering millions of fully-conscious animals in front of children who will quickly learn how to use a butcher’s knife.

Milton Friedman, Bad Laws and Tax Evasion

In this video, entitled "Incentives for Immoral Behavior", the American economist Professor Milton Friedman explains how there are fundamentally two types of law: those that are regarded as moral and just by the vast majority of people, and those which are not.

The former group of laws are generally obeyed because they speak to the inner moral sense of the population, the latter have a high rate of violations.

Obviously, the greater the number of laws and regulations, the higher the number of them that will be considered as superfluous and will not carry moral value among the citizens, and in turn the more numerous the laws that will be broken.

This generates a psychological and social climate of lawlessness, which is clearly bad for society.

For a long time now I've thought that laws are like medicines: they both almost invariably have side effects, unwanted consequences. Therefore, they should be used extremely sparingly, only as the last resort.

Unfortunately, left unchecked, governments have a tendency to create an enormous amount of unnecessary laws and regulations, that just complicate life, make it more expensive, and often contradict each other so new laws have to be passed to solve those contradictions or to solve the problems produced by the previous laws.

Very interesting, for the current political environment of Britain and in fact all the West, is Friedman's reference in the video to how people who wouldn't steal a penny from another person have no moral qualms about finding ways to evade tax, which is illegal.

It's relevant to the current climate because in the UK tax evasion has recently increased, and Prime Minister David Cameron, for one, has been chastising this practice, while the press has brought to public attention cases involving corporations and entertainment famous figures ("celebs") alike.

The rise in tax evasion is undoubtedly due to the profligate, dissipated and frankly cretin way in which successive British governments, particularly during the interminably long 13 years of the previous Labour tenure, have squandered taxpayers' money to create the third highest national debt in the world.

The vast disillusion with the welfare state - by far the main culprit of this waste - in which taxpayers, namely its donors and funders, have lost any trust, is clearly largely responsible for the tax evasion hike. Knowing how the welfare system of benefits is easily exploited and is replete with fraud cases must provide a huge inspiration and incentive for fiddling with tax returns.

Basically, the law-makers should not pass laws and impose taxes that appeal to themselves for ideological - like redistribution of wealth - or other reasons, but have no or little resonance with the people they are supposed to represent.

To give citizens, as Milton put it, "incentives for immoral behavior", specifically for law-breaking, should be avoided because, once people start thinking of themselves in those terms, psychologically it has a domino effect and contributes to the spreading of an attitude of mistrust and eventually corruption.

As the US economist says, the endemic corruption in the British civil service was eliminated by getting rid of the laws that were giving rise to bribes.


Hat tip to Erwin

Support for Christianity Should Not Alienate People

This article is the first part of a reply to the comments on my speech What is Uniquely Good about Western Civilisation Derives from Christianity. Most of them have been positive, in agreement with what I said.

This is something we should take more notice of. Militant atheists and anti-Christian people are very vocal, but they only represent a minority of ordinary people's views.

Very few persons have disagreed with my speech. One commenter, though, has sent me observations that, as well as highly critical of the position I take there - even to the point of suggesting that my party Liberty GB, which upholds Christian values and principles, would lose supporters because of this stance -, are detailed enough to warrant a complex answer in more than one part. Here is the first. I’ll call the commenter by his Christian name, Tony.

Some of Tony’s comments remind me of a trial in which, reversing the traditional legal procedure, the defendant is a priori considered guilty until proven innocent, and what is applied to him is a strange, contradictory criterion according to which everything that stands in his favour is discounted as pure chance while whatever stands against him is taken as undisputed evidence of his evil nature.

This is an example of the former:

I agree with you that many wonderful things have come from people professing to be Christians. Public schools and hospitals in Britain are one example. However there is no reason to believe these would not have come about without religion.

In other words, that people professing to be Christian and acting according to the teachings of Jesus and to Christian beliefs and morals created something good is not due to Christianity.

And, immediately after the above, comes an instance of the latter:

The societal benefits that you describe as coming from Christianity came after the Reformation, when the power and influence of Christianity was greatly reduced, and the Church was put in its place. Prior to the Reformation, society was undermined by superstition, religious persecution and backwardness, there was very little in the way of social or scientific development for hundreds of years, which is why it's called The Dark Ages.

Putting aside for a moment the question of the historical accuracy of this description, the double-standard message is very clear: everything good that was done by Christians is not due to Christianity, but everything bad that that was done by Christians is.

Such a position of total enmity and hatred (for once this overused term is justified) for Christianity, which only a few decades ago would have been considered not only offensive but, even more importantly, as absurd as coming from another planet – maybe the planet of Islam -, is perfectly understandable today.

We have to realise that the Left, with its typically 20th century’s creation of Cultural Marxism, has been in power in all Western countries since the end of the Second World War, both when it has been and when it hasn’t been in government.

The power of the Left is ideological, is its grip on every means of spreading ideas and indoctrinating people, in short is cultural. Every other political force now has to confront the theories of the Left which, in the views of the majority, stand on the moral and political high ground – although this can easily be shown as a myth. That communists killed around a hundred million people should act as a simple inspiration for doubting that myth, but apparently communism has remained largely unscathed in Western minds, weirdly disconnected from its effects.

I wonder why. Possibly for the same reason as Christianity is so wildly vilified? Because of socio-communist propaganda dominating schools, universities, media, entertainment?

Hate for Christianity has been mirroring and running parallel to hate for the West, and has led to the historical revisionism, misinformation, ignorance, distortions and propaganda that neo-Marxism has successfully spread in the last 50-60 years. This will be treated in the second part of my article, which will deal with slavery, a classic case of falsification of history and doctrine that has created the myths of the evils of both Christianity and the West.

I know about it beacuse I was a victim of this indoctrination too, and years ago I may have agreed with what Tony writes.

That loathing of Christianity is real can be seen from this comment to my post "From Atheist to Agnostic":

My family is quite devout (or as devout as the CoE permits), and I was bullied a bit for it in school.

Tony says:

To associate Liberty GB with Christianity will alienate a lot of people (myself included). You might also be linked in peoples' minds (and then dismissed) to the Christian fundamentalist movement / religion Right in the USA. This would bring a lot of negative baggage.

That every time someone defends Christianity he (in this case, she) risks being classified as a fundamentalist is very similar to the risk that an individual opposed to uncontrolled immigration to the West or aware of the dangers of Islam will be called racist or Islamophobic.

Both these types of accusations derive from a similar kind of profound misunderstanding.

And also, as American scholar of Islamic culture Raymond Ibrahim wrote in a personal note to me:

[W]hatever the shortcomings of the Christian right in America, vis-a-vis Europe, they certainly have a better approach to Islam, whereas secular-centered Europe is exactly where it is, and going to get worse, because they reject the idea of any connection to Christianity.

Ibrahim expressed my speech's main point as follows:

Christianity, as with all religions, has two aspects, the spiritual (personal) and the cultural (societal): in our context, one need not discuss or even promote the former, but rather it is the latter that needs to make a comeback - the legacy, heritage, etc., that the West can rally behind, give it a core, a sense of collective identity, and of course a moral grounding.

You can find this position represented in a comment to my speech from another person:

I am an Atheist but I believe that a free , strong , democratic society can only exist in the West by following Christian ethics or as in Israel , Jewish ethics ( after all Israel is the only democratic country in the middle east .)

And this is the point: how is it that people who extoll so much the importance of science, as atheists generally do, take so little notice of empirical evidence, which is a foundational element of the scientific method?

If all religions were the same, and in particular if they were equally bad, how is it that they have produced cultures so far apart from each other, with profoundly, extremely different outcomes for the well-being of the corresponding populations? Correlation is not causation, granted, but what broadly divides the West from the Islamic world, and both from the rest, is indeed religion, with all the ideas that it generates.

Only the West, which has always been Christian, has reached peak achievements in all human fields, bringing with it countries that understood its success and imitated it. Those who deny the importance of Christianity should provide an explanation for this phenomenon.

What is Uniquely Good about Western Civilisation Derives from Christianity

Transcript

My name is Enza Ferreri. I'm a blogger, journalist and the Press Officer of the Liberty GB party.

This video is for everybody, but it's mostly for the people in the counter-jihad movement, and among them, the atheists and agnostics. We know much more – and I include myself – about Islam than we know about Christianity.

Now, I've been an atheist almost all my life. I've become an agnostic less than a year ago, when I realised that the reason why many people, many atheists, are opposed to the belief in God – the reason they'll give is that there is not enough evidence for the belief in God – could also be an argument against atheism. Because when you say there's no Creator, ... when you don't explain the origin of the universe by means of a Creator, you are automatically subscribing to the alternative view which is that everything happened by chance, that the universe came about by accident, and that has got less evidence ... than the belief in God.

Now this introduction is just to make you understand who I am, where I'm coming from, but has nothing to do with what I'm going to say next.

Let's put the belief in God aside. Okay, we all know that we have a problem with Islam. But we should understand, for instance, that the EDL [English Defence League] has failed – has got many problems – exactly because it starts from only that viewpoint. It's just a spontaneous reaction against Islam, but without a grasp of the problem and a better ground to understand it and to face it. Islam is not the problem, Islam is a symptom of a disease, and the disease is cultural Marxism.

Now the West wouldn't have any problem with Islam if the West were strong within. It's a bit like the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, yes, was destroyed by the barbarians from outside, but more than anything was destroyed by its own weakness inside, the divisions, the political divisions within it. And the same, something similar, applies to the West and Islam, in the same way as Rome versus the barbarians.

Our superiority, the West's superiority and greater strength is such that Islam wouldn't trouble us at all if we didn't have these divisions within the West, Western civilisation, which are caused by Cultural Marxism, which is the reincarnation of Marxism in the twentieth century.

Antonio Gramsci, who founded the Italian Communist Party in 1921, formulated the theory of cultural hegemony, which says that before being able to change, to make a change politically, to have a political revolution, we need to change the culture. And that is done by changing the consciousness of the people, a total change in and control of the culture, so that new, emerging, dominant ideas would lead to the political revolution and give rise to new generations with different ideas.

That has been done by the Left successfully. After Gramsci there was the Frankfurt School later on, and since then the Left has applied this idea of cultural hegemony and has with it control of the media, and the education system, has done exactly that and has won the war so far.

Now we must do the same, we must use the same means. How? The great Oriana Fallaci, who was one of the first, one of the pioneers to open the eyes of the West to the dangers of Islam, was herself an atheist. But she called herself a Christian atheist.

This is an important distinction because we want to distinguish between Christian theology and the belief in God – to which we may or may not subscribe – [and] Christianity as civilisational foundation for the West and for our countries. And that is non-negotiable. We need Christianity, we can't do without it because this is what the West was built on.

We are ourselves the victims of decades of leftist propaganda, so it's understandable that many of us have actually embraced them, believed in them. But there are many [myths in what they say]: first of all, that all religions are the same. This is absurd. If you want to think scientifically and look at empirical evidence, where are Christian terrorists? Let's look around ourselves, there aren't any.

But there are so many Muslim terrorists, and not only that, all over the world violence is initiated mostly by Islam. No other religion really, but certainly not Christianity.

And another thing: we have to explain to ourselves why only the Christian part of the world has made such enormous progress, to which the other parts of the world don't even come close. There must be some explanation, why is it? The only thing that distinguishes the West from the rest is Christianity.

Christianity is not what some atheists – I'm not talking about all atheists of course, there are atheists like Oriana Fallaci, like me, or agnostics, who don't believe in that – but some atheists propagate the wrong ideas about Christianity, and they have led us to believe some things that Christianity is not.

Christianity is a very complex, rational doctrine developed through centuries of Patristic and Scholastic philosophy incorporating Aristotle and his logic. If all religions were the same, how is it that Aristotle could never be reconciled with Islam?

Now let's think about the Crusades as well. Most people in the counter-jihad movement, will know by now, hopefully, that there's been a huge historical distortion of what the Crusades were about – by the Left, by Cultural Marxism.

They were not, as they have been portrayed, a war of aggression, but they were actually the opposite, they were belated wars of defence against the encroachments of Islam, which was about to conquer Europe. We have to thank the Crusades if we are now not all Muslims or minorities in Islamic countries – which is a fate worse than death, you just have to look at what happens all around the world.

So in same way as the Crusades have been, the history of the crusades has been distorted and manipulated by the Left, in education and in the media – if you look at the Hollywood films that have been made about the Crusades, they are all totally distorted –, the same can happen about other parts of Christian history.

Now, I'm not going through all the history of Christianity because we haven't got enough time for this short video, but we've got to look at the things that Christianity has contributed to the West, which are important throughout Western history, including now.

Christianity is deeply ingrained in many of the things that we believe in today. Many of our institutions, values, principles and practices. And here they are, for instance:

All men are equal. This is a distinctive Christian belief, not to be found in any other religion or doctrine, especially at the time of Jesus Christ, it was a very, very revolutionary belief; and without bias of race or class.

The freedom and rights of the individual. For Christianity man has free will and he is in the image of God. This is in stark contrast to the autocratic societies of the non-Christian world, past and present. Without freedom, without this kind of freedom, there are no other freedoms, political, economic or religious.

Human rights derive from the Christian concept of natural rights.

The dignity of manual labour, that Christianity has introduced; it didn't exist in other cultures. Remember that Jesus's father was a carpenter, and most of the people he recruited were either fishermen or other labourers.

Christianity has been the inspiration of great art, music and literature.

Then, the abolition of slavery. Only Christianity has abolished slavery. It still exists in Islam, it's never been abolished by Islam, whereas Christianity abolished it twice: at the time of the Roman Empire first, when Christianity became the [future] religion of the Roman Empire; and in nineteenth century America – it was Christians who abolished slavery in nineteenth century America.

Then, Jesus banned animal sacrifices.

Then, the banning of gladiator fights, which derived from pagan Rome.

Christianity in ethics. Christian ethics is the best ethics, even today. There is nothing that has been able to replace it. Utilitarianism, which is a non-Christian – actually non-religious – ethics founded by Jeremy Bentham in the nineteenth century, is not a good system of ethics. It basically accepts the principle that the end justifies the means.

Christian ethics is still the best ethics, founded on love and charity. In fact, you can see that the people who help now and have helped the Third World – who have gone there and helped it – the vast majority of them are Christians.

Before Christianity and in other parts of the world ... there's never been an interest for the poor, the sick and the dying. Christianity introduced historically the institutionalisation of healthcare.

Then, the birth of science. Science in the modern sense of the word was born with the beginning of the modern era in Europe, after the Renaissance. ... Science is a system, a systematic application of a method of enquiry to nature, and a different outlook on the natural world.

It's been possible because Christian scientists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries – and philosophers of science as well – because they were Christian they believed that because the Christian God is a person like us, He has ordered the universe in a way that we can understand. For science it is essential that there is an orderly universe, that you can discover the laws of nature.

We think this is obvious now, we take it for granted, but it's not an obvious concept at all, that the universe must be ordered and not chaotic. In fact the Chinese, for instance, at the time couldn't believe in that. That's why science [didn't] develop in China for instance.

If you read a book, why do you think you can understand it? Because you know that you speak the same language as the author, or think, have a mind that is similar to that of the author. Galileo spoke of the book of nature being written by God in mathematical language and he said we – scientists – can understand it because we have a mind similar to that of God, we are built in his own image. So this was all essential for the birth of science, and Christianity was crucial in it.

No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation or movement has changed the world for the better as Christianity has done. Are we going to throw all this away? How do we know that all these great things that Christianity has given us will survive without it?

As individuals we can be atheist or agnostic, but can we as a society be?

Is it a coincidence that Islam is representing a mortal threat to the West for the first time in centuries just when our society doesn't seem to believe in anything any more?

All the enemies of the West have always been enemies of Christianity. Is that a coincidence?

To resist the ideological onslaught of Islam, we must know who we are. This culture of nothing, of nothingness, prevailing in the West has helped Islam, and will continue to be an obstacle to our resistance to it.

Not all atheists but those of them who oppose Christianity and the Church don't realise that they are fighting against the strongest inspiration and the most effective defence of Western civilisation and its values of rationality and freedom. And they might realise that when it's too late.

When Tommy Met Mo It Ended in Tears

I’ve watched the BBC documentary When Tommy Met Mo: Leaving the EDL (video above), which was clearly intended to portray Islam as a peaceful, nice and tolerant “religion”, hijacked by some, in short the usual spin, but this time with the prestigious and authoritative backing of a former English Defence League leader.

That Tommy Robinson lent himself to this circus shows what a confused man he is. He has a split personality, at least vis–à–vis Islam. There are times when he appears to understand, at least partly, what Islam is; and then there are times when he has strong doubts about what he has previously thought, and starts talking nonsense.

The fact that he may believe all the things said by Mohammed Ansar and Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation is another indication of how unclear his ideas about Islam are. He wasn’t even able to quote from the Quran in an intelligible way, which would have been the easiest thing in the world and the first thing to do, when the others disputed his words. Of course we don’t know if the BBC cut out the parts when Robinson might have appeared not so gullible: we have to go by what the documentary shows, but I suspect that it must have had Tommy’s final approval.

About paedophilia, all he had to say is that Muhammad, the ideal man, the model of behaviour for all Muslims – none excluded – to follow, was a paedophile himself, which automatically legitimises paedophilia in Islam.

And about reforming Islam and throwing away parts – the nasty, “violent” he called them, parts - of the Quran: you cannot reform or pick and choose between the words of God, and for Muslims the Quran IS the direct word of God, verbatim dictated to Muhammad, unlike the Bible, that was written by men. So, unlike Christianity, Islam is by its very nature fundamentalist and cannot be reformed in principle.

The often-repeated leitmotif of the documentary was “British Islam”, a contradiction in terms no less than “squared circle”.

I’m writing all this not because Tommy or what he does have a supreme importance for me, although he's been a brave bloke and although his actions still have major effects. For example, a friend of mine, who is highly representative of public opinion and who watched the documentary too, now likes Tommy Robinson very much, thinks he’s a nice person, and more than ever hopes that Islam will be reformed and everything in the UK will be hunky-dory with Muslims. Which is the impression the BBC wanted to create: Islam is good and, even in case you doubt it - namely, even if you have eyes and ears –, it can always be reformed. What more do you want?

No, I’m writing this because there is a lesson for us on all this.

The lesson is that we cannot act without having thought first, which is what Tommy omitted to do. He has made such a mess of things: being against Islam – or maybe not -, then being an apologist for Islam, like the historian Tom Holland appearing on the programme, whom I never quite found convincing – and what he said on this broadcast confirms me in my opinion.

And Tommy made such a mess of things because he did not start with the right foot, which would have been having a good, solid and deep understanding of what he was fighting against, beginning with a clarification of the spurious distinction between Islam and Islamism, that he never quite realised to be fabricated. But, in a war, comprehending who your enemy is is necessary but not sufficient. You also have to understand who you are and more importantly what you fight for.

The existence of an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) division in the EDL shows very clearly that he did not grasp what he was fighting for. The Left, even before Islam, is our enemy. The Left is the enabler of Islam in the West. And you don’t fight the Left by joining it. The normalisation of homosexuality - and even more transexuality - is one of the many manifestations of the cultural war victories that Marxism has achieved over the Western, typically Christian, values and principles we stand for.

That’s why I keep stressing the importance of having clear ideas and ideology before anything else.

It doesn’t have to end in a civil war, as somebody gloomily forecasts, just because Tommy Robinson – and probably the EDL – have failed. We can learn from their mistakes and solve this problem politically, as we in the Liberty GB party are trying to do.

Londoners Sign Petition for Female Genital Mutilation

Shocking but revealing.

Leyla Hussein, a Somali woman living in London who was subjected to female genital mutilation when she was seven in Somalia, has tried a macabre experiment to test how far the political correctness of the public in the British capital would go.

She asked shoppers to sign a petition supporting FGM, telling them she wanted to protect her “culture, traditions and rights”.

Ms Hussein astonishingly found that only one person out of 20 refused to sign her petition.

She said to the London Evening Standard:

“I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

...[P]ublic health minister Jane Ellison warned that vulnerable girls were being failed because people do not want to be seen as “culturally insensitive”.

This reminds me a bit of that notorious psychology experiment in which subjects were asked to administer electric shocks to other persons by someone whom they believed to be a scientist. Under test was the willingness of ordinary people, not particularly sadistic or cruel, to go along with the infliction of even severe pain on innocent human beings if the command was imparted by a figure in authority in a white coat if they thought that this could benefit science.

The pain was imaginary, no electric shocks were really given, but the subjects did not know that. Mostly, they obeyed the order to administer progressively stronger electric shocks, and continued even when the presumed victims, whom they could not directly see, were screaming.

Two are the great gods of our world, to whom everything must be sacrificed, as in the ancient pagan rites of human and animal sacrifices: science and political correctness.


Photo by Jonathon Narvey (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

Immigration: UK public was never consulted

It’s so odd that many British politicians, especially those of the Euro-skeptic variety, always go on saying that the UK public has not been consulted regarding Britain’s position in the European Union now that the process of European integration is political and not just economical as it was when the UK held a referendum on the subject in 1975.

It’s odd because no politician ever, at least in the mainstream political parties, has ever uttered a word about another dramatically important issue affecting British people’s lives much more profoundly than the country’s European membership.

I refer to the mass immigration, legal and illegal, of so-called economic migrants as well as political refugees and asylum seekers, genuine and bogus alike, that has inundated the country with a number of people from all over the world so large and so unmanageable that nobody knows exactly what it is.

I said it’s odd but in fact it isn’t. There’s a crucial reason why the decisions about mass immigration have been taken by the various successive governments from the post-war period to now without bothering to find out what the people actually wanted.

Because politicians know extremely well that the vast majority of the British population do not want this large-scale demographic experiment performed on their own skin, as all opinion polls clearly show.

Some Religions Are More Equal Than Others: the Existence of Double Standards

It never ceases to amaze me how on one hand cultural products considered offensive to Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are treated as “hate crimes”. If, God forbid, a book or a film offends Islam (and that is easy enough, because Muslims do get easily offended), on top of being labelled a hate crime it also puts author, director or producers’ lives at risk with a fatwa (in fact, a film about Islam would be even too dangerous to make).

But on the other hand to offend Christianity is “art”, as in the case of Chris Ofili's painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and surrounded by cut-outs from pornographic magazines.

The existence of the much over-used words "anti-semitic" and "islamophobic" obviously shows that certain groups are protected by political correctness, but one group is not.

There have been many excuses put forward for Ofili's work, the most common of which have been:

1)You can attack your own religion.

No, because it is not only your religion, it is not exclusive to yourself. Many other coreligionists may be offended by something that you don't find offensive, and you have to think of its effect on them.

2) Dung is God's creation.

What about pornographic cuts? Last time I checked it was not God that created Playboy or hard core movies.
The question is one of context. It is not the human body or its products at issue here, but the association of a Christian symbol with something which has a repulsive connotation.

3) It makes people think.

Wow! So, without a product of defecation or urination slapped in front of them, people wouldn't be able to think. Whatever the persons who put forward this excuse have faith in they can't have a lot of faith in people's reflective powers.
It's possible to make people think without the "shock, horror!" techniques that someone seems to believe necessary. Incidentally, aren't they the same techniques used by popular tabloids and mags ('gutter press' they are called in England)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People who defend Ofili's work overlook the all-important question of communication.

We use certain words (and discard others) because we know that they convey a certain meaning to other people, that is the recipients of our communication, not to ourselves.

Communication is all about thinking of who is going to receive it and what they will make of it.

Now, art is one of the most important forms of communication.

Whether a painting is a real work of art or is art only in its producer's wishes (and wildest dreams), it doesn't alter the fact that it is a means of communication.

Whatever Ofili thinks, it should have been obvious even to a not exactly gigantic intellect like him that the majority of people who would see the painting considered elephant dung as a symbol of something totally different from Ofili's supposed and alleged original intentions.

By associating it with a symbol of Christianity, Ofili conveyed a clear message.

The message is: profanity.

Let me explain what it means, from the original Greek: it is to pollute and displace one icon with another. Now, trying to interject offensive symbology into a religion's iconography certainly is profanity. Is it profane for the culture involved, Christianity, or not? Since so many Christians protested vehemently about it, one could with certainty infer that they found it profane.

The most interesting things I read on that work by Ofili are this:

"There is contempt of the past, a senseless denial of any possibility of enduring meaning, in desecration art. Desecration art functions like the parasite; it destroys the heritage from which it draws its meaning. Ofili's piece illustrates this. The icon gives the piece meaning, yet the icon is what the piece seeks to destroy. Destroy the meaning of the icon and the meaning of the piece is destroyed with it like the parasite that dies with its host. The artist is vandal and the museum the gate to this cultural barbarism."

And this:

"Or perhaps the artist, not unlike a dirtyminded little adolescent, sought the most offensive image his little brain could contrive in order to aquire a name and hopefully wealth. Because that is what art today is really about, money. It is no different from pop culture, which is what Warhol went to all the trouble to point out."

And the central issue at stake here is that no works of "art" have done the same thorough job at desecrating fundamental symbols of religions other than Christianity.

Conversely, every time a Christian symbol is depicted in "art" now is surrounded by or associated with excreta, urine, vaginas, condoms, breasts, panties, coat hangers for abortion, phallic pipes, simulated sex acts and the like.

"Violence" Has a Different Definition for Muslims

Below is another post, from my discontinued blog of a few years ago, which can still provide food for thought today. The article, dated 19 September 2006, was prompted by and referring to a then recent event, that of Pope Benedict XVI quoting from the erudite 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and the violent reactions from Muslims it elicited. Since it's not in the article, this is what the Holy Father said in the lecture he gave at the University of Regensburg in Germany:

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that [the Quran] surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

After the South American Pope Francis' election, Benedict XVI sounds refreshingly well acquainted with Islam and its development from weak - and therefore forced to be "peaceful" - to strong and aggressive.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To state that Muslims, by reacting with anger, attempts at intimidation and with both threats and acts of violence to the claim that Islam is violent (regardless of the question whether this was what the Holy Father simply quoted), are saying with their own actions what has been claimed just with words is even too obvious.

What I think is showing here is a semantic gulf between the West and Islam.

I cannot believe that all Muslims are so stupid (it’s possible, but statistically improbable) not to realize that for someone to say: “I’m not violent, and I’ll kill you if you say that” is a situation worth of a comedy sketch.

What I think is that when we Westerners say “violence” or “violent” we mean something entirely different from what Muslims intend by the same words.

The Western definition of those words, for reasons of culture, history and mentality, is not the Muslim definition of them. They have a negative connotation in both worlds, but they are applied to different behaviours and actions.

For example, for us in the West the act of killing someone who has offended Mohammed, Islam, the Koran or anything sacred to Muslims is an act of unqualified violence. For Muslims, it simply is not: it is indeed an act even laudable and in some circumstances legal and required (e.g. the fatwa proclaiming the death sentence for Salman Rushdie).

I personally am convinced that the Pope believes in the words he quoted from the erudite 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus. He did not retract them. The reason for his expressing regret at the way they had been taken was mainly, in my opinion, to protect the unfortunate people who are already persecuted on a routine basis and prevent them from being persecuted even more: I refer, of course, to the Christians living in Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, where the burning of churches is a normal occurrence, only made worse by the jihad against the Holy Father.

And, to mix the sacred with the profane, does anybody remember what the Muslim Zidane did when he headbutted the Italian Materazzi in the football World Cup final last July? He blamed Materazzi for having provoked him, stubbornly refused to apologize to him and, in the politically correct environment of the FIFA and the liberal media, he almost got away with that lame excuse. It looks like blaming others for one’s own violence and irrational behaviour is definitely a Muslim thing.


Photo by permiegardener (Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0).

What Eid Teaches Moderate Muslims and Their Kids

Two days ago 15 October - the date changes every year - was the wonderful Islamic festival of Eid-ul-Adha, celebrated by Muslims worldwide by sacrificing fully conscious animals.

Of course, considering that this is a multi-million-animal slaughter - on Eid, 7.5 million animals are sacrificed every year in Pakistan alone -, by the theory of probability some incident or another is bound to happen.

Like this in Gaza, where some poor, oppressed (sob) Palestinians showed their great kindness of heart - why, they would never hurt an Israeli, promise - when, not content with simply butchering the animals, started torturing them and were attacked and wounded by the cattle.

A few reports are coming from Italy, where Muslims are - alas, oops I meant Insha'Allah - rapidly multiplying. Il Giornale di Vicenza, a local paper in the region of Venice, says about the halal slaughter on Eid:

The ceremony takes place in front of the family, with the children in the front row: it is not considered a macabre spectacle because Muslims witness it from an early age and it's part of the religious tradition.

But a grandad disagreed. An Italian man, Salvatore Cipolletta, whose daughter Cristina married young Yemeni Haidar Rohay Ahmed Al-Tawil, shot dead his son-in-law after seeing him butcher a lamb on the family's dinner table under his own grandchildren's eyes.

While in Italy the number of marriages, and in particular church weddings, has reached historic lows, mixed marriages between Italians and immigrants have steadily increased.

These, however, often don't seem to lead to happy families.

The climate of violence that surrounds Islam in so many of its doctrines, characteristics and rituals can only generate more, interminable violence in an endless cycle.

During a festive family celebration having, rather than a visit to a theme park or a trip to the cinema, an animal slaughter show without the benefit of pre-stunning as entertainment and education for the children is likely to produce adults who will not abhor blood and savagery but will find them normal: which may be what the original intention behind these rituals actually was.


Hat tip to Vale Ramone.

Photo by TheAnimalDay.org (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

Italy's Muslim Immigrants Family Violence

In Italy the number of marriages, especially in church, has reached historic lows, but on the other hand mixed marriages between Italians and immigrants are on the rise and have been for several years.

What's the result? Not always family bliss. As could have been easily predicted, cultural and religious differences are more important than multiculturalism leads people to believe.

And within purely immigrant Muslim families the problems are the same.

From Il Giornale di Vicenza, a local paper in the Venice region:

The wife who kills her husband's mistress because she does not comply with the dictates of the Koran; the husband who kills an acquaintance who offended his wife by calling her a prostitute, again in defiance of Muslim laws. The family dramas triggered by religious causes are unfortunately not uncommon in the Vicenza area.

Then there are the nephew tortured because he doesn't go to the mosque, the wife battered for not wearing the burqa, the little Indian girl beaten up due to her choice of an Italian boyfriend.

If the first hypotheses about the Via Todeschini crime were confirmed, namely a quarrel resulted in tragedy over the differences on the sacrifice of a lamb, the death of the young Yemeni would be part of the long trail of blood shed in the Province of Vicenza for reasons related to beliefs, rituals and conflicts of a religious nature.

If the most recent case is that of a young 14-year-old African from Arzignano, whose uncle cut off his ear lobe as punishment because the boy did not want to regularly frequent the mosque, the most resounding, followed by the whole of Italy, dates back to 4 November 1999.

That evening, in the butcher shop near the Multicenter, in the city, the Moroccan citizen Saida Tawil, 38, killed with 32 stab wounds her compatriot Mina Etamraoui. The victim, who was the lover of her husband, did not want to accept the Koranic law of concubinage. An honour killing paid with "only" 6 years in prison because she was granted, thanks to her lawyers Paolo Mele senior and Caterina Evangelisti, the extenuating circumstance of provocation.

The two women were in love with a man, the murderer's husband, who loved both and could not decide. The victim had converted to Western customs; and although the killer had recognized the concubine, as the Koran rules, she did not accept that she didn't respect the laws of the Koran by wearing Western clothes and drinking beer.

For these religious reasons she murdered her and injured her own husband.

The previous year, in Bassano, another Moroccan killed the man who had dared call his wife a prostitute; in this case as well, the murderer acted for religious motives, because that type of insult is considered very serious by the Koran.

A case that received much coverage is that of an Asian immigrant living in the Chiampo valley, who wanted to prevent his daughter from going out with an Italian boy. For him this was unacceptable, so he locked her in the house and beat her up. Similar is the case of the Arzignano husband who mistreated his wife for not wearing a burqa as his religion dictates, and who was reported and risked being arrested.

Another phenomenon, less serious, is represented by the customs of the Sikh religious community, which is very strong in all Alto Vicentino and normally meets in Castelgomberto. [The problems here are] The turban, which prevents them from wearing helmets when riding a motorbike, and even more the knife they carry around as an object of worship (like the cross for a Christian) and is frequently seized by the police, with criminal charges, as a posssible weapon.

Hat tip to Vale Ramone.

Green Britain: Energy Blackouts Imminent

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


The UK is facing its greatest risk of blackouts since 2007/08 in the coming winter. The National Grid, responsible for balancing the country's supply and demand of energy, last week has given this warning because Britain’s reserves of electricity have halved in 12 months.

The UK and the USA are in the same boat here. Both countries have governments that have – or pretend to have - fallen for the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory hook, line, and sinker.

The Obama Administration’s regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, that The New York Times has described as “an aggressive move by Mr. Obama to bypass Congress on climate change with executive actions he promised in his inaugural address this year”, have been denounced as part of the president’s “war on coal.”

White House climate adviser Daniel P. Schrag, director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, admitted in an interview with the paper that this is exactly what it is:

The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.

The new rules will be aimed at new gas-fired power plants but mostly at coal power plants, being the form of energy generation that emits most CO2.

According to a report released earlier this year by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, over 280 coal-fired units are expected to close down partly because of the new, stricter EPA regulations, 5 times more than the number predicted by the EPA itself. One of them is New England’s largest coal-fired power plant.

Some say that the rules will kill the future of coal and raise electricity costs.

In Britain, skyrocketing utility bills and “fuel poverty” are already a reality. "Fuel poverty" is a new condition, in which energy bills expenditure makes up 10% or more of the household's net income. One in four British households is suffering from it. Some people have to choose to eat less in order to keep warm.

The exceptionally high gas and electricity bills are due to the fact that householders are obliged to subsidize ineffective “renewables”, like the totally useless wind farms which are now blotting the country’s landscape and seascape against the fierce but crushed opposition of the local residents.

The Renewable Obligations Order system, introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2002, forces companies supplying electricity to buy a proportion of their electricity from non-fossil sources. Since these are highly ineffective, the energy companies have to pay inflated prices, which they pass on to their unfortunate customers through their electricity bills.

In March 2003 the Blair government published an Energy White Paper. In its Section 4.7 it says explicitly:

We have introduced a Renewables Obligation for England and Wales in April 2002. This will incentivise generators to supply progressively higher levels of renewable energy over time. The cost is met through higher prices to consumers. By 2010, it is estimated that this support and Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption will be worth around £1 billion a year to the UK renewables industry. [Emphases added]

It also estimated that meeting the CO2 reduction targets would increase household energy bills by up to 15%.

With the Climate Change Act 2008 the UK government, by its own description, "passed legislation that introduces the world's first long-term legally binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change."

It is an unprecedented piece of legislation, which The Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker, author of books on the global warming scare, described as:

by far the most expensive law in history, which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to reducing its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years. By the Government's own estimates, this will cost up to £18 billion a year. Any hope that we could begin to meet such a target without closing down most of our economy is as fanciful as the idea that we can meet our EU commitment to generate 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 from 'renewable' sources, such as wind and solar.

Many want that law scrapped. The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change has taken much more seriously the second part of its name than the first, and now the country is facing the consequences with the first blackouts of possibly a long series, while fracking is hysterically opposed by environmentalists who with their celebrity-filled protests managed to stop it in some locations.

This is the paradox of the AGW theory of man-made climate change. Not only UK pensioners are suffering and dying from some of the coldest winters on record – which refutes the theory, since temperatures haven’t increased with the risen levels of CO2 in the last 15 years, as the computer models based on the theory predicted -, but also they may not be helped by an efficient energy system, providing the heating that could save their lives, because of policies dictated by the very same theory.

For years energy experts have warned of an impending energy shortage crisis in the UK, due to the closure of many coal-based and gas-fired power plants while new ones have not been built, and the reliance on an astronomical number of newly-built wind farms to generate the necessary energy has proven a huge mistake.

The IPPC, the United Nations body responsible for research and policy recommendations on climate change, is a confused mixture of science and politics.

The IPPC comprises scientists and government officials, some of whom are scientists and some are not. There are two main types of IPCC documents: the reports written by scientists and the Summaries for Policy Makers which officials write on the basis of the scientists’ reports often in greatly altered and misrepresented form.

The Summaries for Policy Makers are usually the only IPCC documents that journalists and governments see. Repeatedly the scientists who wrote the original scientific essays have complained that their views had been misunderstood and inaccurately reported in the documents for policy makers, invariably to make them appear more strongly in favour of the received AGW theory wisdom than they actually were.

Even allowing for the remote possibility that there were some truth in that theory, whatever the reality about climate change, the policies of both the UK and the USA are nothing short of insane.

With China and India, the world’ most populous, fast-developing (and polluting) countries with 40% of the planet's human inhabitants between them, never subscribing to AGW theory - mainly supported by Western nations - and never accepting even the minimum restriction to their CO2 emissions because this would have hampered their economic growth, Britain’s and America’s attempt to cut down CO2 will only serve to damage their economies without helping the environment in any way, shape or form.

This is what columnist Charles Krauthammer has recognized when he called Obama’s proposals “nuts”. A diagnosis which is hard to fault.


More articles on the subject:

Why UK Electricity Prices Are so High

Disadvantages and Advantages of Wind Turbines

China Development and Climate Change

Is Ought


Photo courtesy of BritainGallery.com

Repulsion Is the Natural Feeling towards Homosexuality

If we think of the gigantic progress made by the "gay liberation" movement in just a few decades or even years, we are astonished.

The idea of homomarriage would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago when homosexuals themselves were declaring their opposition to this institution, and even 5 years ago it would have been difficult for it to become part of the UK law.

It has required a social re-education programme of vast proportions, a cultural war for general sexual freedom, of which homosexual "liberation" is part.

One method of crucial importance and psychological effectiveness employed by the homosexual movement and by the Left in general, of which proponents of "gay rights" talk openly, has been the use of desensitisation.

This technical term derives from the learning theory, a psychological theory descended from behaviourism.

The technique of systematic desensitisation is popularly and commonly used in behaviour psychotherapy. It consists in exposing the patient to something - an object, situation, person, animal - to which he has a sensitivity considered excessive, abnormal, pathological or harmful, as in the case of a phobia, until it gradually decreases and hopefully disappears.

The point is that desensitisation is useful and advisable if you have, for example, a phobia of cats. If you have a fear of tigers, getting desensitised may be a very bad idea.

Clearly, for people who believe in the existence of "homophobia" - an irrational fear of homosexuals comparable to fears of harmless spiders, the number 13, lifts or mice -, the folks who suffer from it are badly in need of treatment, and desensitisation is the method they've been employing through prolonged exposure to TV, press, celebrity behaviour and public discourse in which homosexuality is presented, in words and images, as "the new norm", or just another lifestyle.

It's natural, animals are homosexuals too, they say. In addition, anything negative said about homosexuality is treated as morally equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race, which these days is a crime worse than murder. This not only reinforces desensitisation to homosexuality but also creates a new sensitisation, a new fear in its place (this time real), that of being considered as a socio-political pariah for thinking - and even feeling - in the wrong way.

Any feeling of aversion or repulsion for homosexual behaviour - even if not extended to homosexual individuals - is to be ferociously repressed and suppressed, by order of the "liberators". If that sentence sounds like a contradiction in terms, it's because it is.

You don't "free" people by making them afraid of you and by imposing on them your views through that fear.

As homosexual celebrity Graham Norton commented in reference to what was happening on the stage during the Eurovision Song Contest held in Malmö in May 2013, "if two girls kissing offends you, you need to grow up". Feelings of offence are not acceptable to the thought police.

To desensitise the public even more, later on two male dancers kissed in the final choreography during the voting process. It's exactly the correct procedure of graduality: first you expose the subject to a milder shock, then to a slighly stronger one.

And any opportunity is good for the cause of "gay liberation", as long as it has a wide audience.

The theory, if we can call it that way, behind this vast programme of brainwashing - vaguely reminiscent of the film A Clockwork Orange, but on a much bigger scale -, which its supporters probably would consider education or rehabilitation, is that only positive feelings towards sexuality are natural.

It probably has a Freudian derivation, since the father of psychoanalysis has had an enormous influence on the way we think and, along with Marx, has been the greatest destroyer of all that is good about Western civilisation.

Sigmund Freud believed that society is a necessary evil, in that the individual's natural urges must be sacrificed for it, which gives rise to neuroses and psychoses.

He inspired the idea that, if we were left to our natural sentiments and impulses, we would only feel attraction for everything that is sexual. Repulsion, shame, disgust only come from society's repressive influence.

But what if it were not like this? What if our natural feelings towards sex were mixed, both of attraction and repulsion?

I'll explore this in more detail in another article, but there are signs that it could be this way. After all, many mammalian species' females go through periods of oestrus or heat, so sexual attraction is limited to those times. In other animals, who don't live in a restrictive society, it's not a sexual free-for-all.

Each species has its normal behaviour, anyway, which may be greatly different from what is the norm in another species, so this is not conclusive. But we can see that in humans too. There is, for example, an innate aversion to sex with kin individuals in humans as well as other animals.

So, sex can provoke natural strong feelings in both directions. Since homosexual activists and their supporters, hard as they tried, have not managed to produce credible theories that homosexuality is "natural" or non-pathological, but on the contrary there are good reasons, which I've examined elsewhere in the articles linked to below, to believe that it is neither, the feelings of aversion to homosexual acts that they try to suppress in us may just be an innate and totally healthy reaction, similar to that towards brother-sister sex. In which case this indoctrination is a harmful manipulation - in addition to an illiberal attack on personal freedom - that we must fight against tooth and nail.

Read previous posts on the condition of homosexuality:

A Critical Assessment of LGBT Claims

Is Homosexuality as Harmless and Healthy as Political Correctness Dictates?

Consenting Adults, Homosexuality, Incest, Polygamy, Bestiality: Defining Acceptable Sexuality



Photo Gay Pride Amsterdam 2008 by FaceMePLS (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

Help Immigrants to Lampedusa Back to Their Countries

In what is one of the worst immigrant tragedies in the Mediterranean in recent years, a boat full of immigrants sank off the coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa, causing over 300 victims at the last count.

The response to the accident is what divides Italy and public opinion worldwide. While the Minister for Integration, Congolese Kyenge Cecile, has used this tragic opportunity to reiterate her call for the abolition of the crime of illegal entry and illegal residence, the Northern League has requested her resignation and wants the boats to be turned back because they are full of illegal immigrants.

Indeed, the best way to prevent tragedies such as this is to discourage the crossings by deterring the would-be migrants, and the best way to achieve that is to turn the boats back.

Italy's immigration law requires repatriation of illegal immigrants and has allegedly sometimes led to the sequester of fishing boats that have saved the lives of migrants. There have been accusations that, in the latest disaster, nearby local fishing boats had seen that the vessel was in trouble but had not come to its rescue.

Italy has pressed the European Union for more help to fight the crisis, saying that “Lampedusa has to be considered the frontier of Europe, not the frontier of Italy.” The EU's Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroemn called on EU countries to do more to take in refugees, which she said would help reduce the number of perilous Mediterranean crossings.

There is talk of having EU boats patrol the area. The point is: should they help immigrants to get to Lampedusa or to go back?

Read previous posts on Lampedusa to get a background of the situation:

Lampedusa, Italy. Part I: What Happened in 2011

Pope's First Official Visit Is to Lampedusa, Tiny Sicilian Island Flooded by African Migrants

An Island in Revolt: A Window into Europe’s Future


Photo lampedusa by Noborder Network (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

The Battle of the Burqa

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


Britain is reaping the fruits of its multi-decennial multicultural policy and of what is euphemistically called “tolerance” - and realistically “bending over backwards” - to Islam.

If anyone doubts that Muhammadanism is a supremacist doctrine, this doubting Thomas should take a look at what’s happening in an English school currently in the news.

Britain's first Muslim “free school” (namely, government funded but outside local authority control), Al-Madinah School in the city of Derby, underwent a two-day (October 1-2) inspection by officials of the government’s education regulator Ofsted. The school has been shut during and after the inspection by its Principal allegedly “owing to a health and safety issue”.

This is how Al-Madinah describes itself:

A strong Muslim ethos will give the school its uniqueness... At the centre of our school is a community of pupils, able to enjoy learning in a caring Islamic environment.

The school is said to be controlled by Islamic hardliners who ban children from playing stringed instruments - forbidden by Islam -, singing except Islamic faith songs, and reading fairy tales as these are 'non-Islamic'.

The school’s former head Andrew Cutts-McKay and former deputy Suzanne Southerland claim they were 'bullied, sidelined' and forced to leave by members of the school's trust, which is predominantly Muslim.

Al-Madinah, established in September 2012, denies it. But only days before those claims, female teachers had alleged that they were told to sign new contracts forcing them to wear the hijab – covering head and neck - and forbidding jewellery, regardless of their religion. They had expressed concern about other practices, like banning non-halal food and forcing female pupils – even 4-year-olds - to sit at the back of the class away from boys.

Even devout Christian teachers were compelled to wear Islamic garb, and in the end quit the school.

One woman claimed she was told not to shake hands with male teachers to avoid “insult”, while another said that girls are allowed to have lunch only after boys have finished eating: “It is like being in any school in Pakistan. That is why it was founded, that is the idea”, she added.

An employee told The Sunday Times newspaper: “When teaching children the alphabet, you could not associate the letter 'p' with pig.”

About half a dozen teachers, who risk their jobs if they don’t comply with the rules, are seeking legal advice from the National Union of Teachers, which commented: “It’s one thing to have a dress code which we can challenge and quite another to build it into a contract.”

The Union’s Sue Arguile explained: “We have always had a number of concerns about this school ever since it was first set up, as essentially they can do what they like.”

The problem with Al-Madinah is its “free school” status which means that, although it received £1.4 million from the government and is expecting more, it sets its own rules, curriculums, dress codes, teachers' pay and conditions. In short, a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, obliged to sign a blank check to the Islamization of their country.

“But”, Arguile points out, “forcing people to agree to contractual changes or face being out of work could breach employment law.”

The Derby school was already under investigation, the Department for Education revealed, before the allegations against it became public, followed by an immediate inspection. “We are waiting for Ofsted's final report and considering all legal options” a spokesman said.

Al-Madinah is not the only case. Another state-backed school, this time in in Blackburn, has imposed strict rules under which pupils must “wear the hijab outside the school and at home, recite the Koran at least once a week” and not have stationery with “unIslamic images”, like pictures of pop stars.

And it was discovered that many Islamic schools in Britain force girls as young as 11 to wear burqas - covering the whole body and face, sometimes with a mesh screen to see through - as the “desired dress code of a Muslim female”, while many others - including about a dozen state-funded schools - demand that female pupils cover their hair.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government should back institutions on banning face-covering veils, as in this BBC interview:

We are a free country and people should be free to wear whatever clothes they like in public or in private.

But we should support those institutions that need to put in place rules so that those institutions can work properly.

So for instance in a school, if they want that particular dress code, I believe the Government should back them. The same for courts, the same for immigration.

Obviously, in court the jury needs to be able to look at someone's face. I've sat on a jury, that's part of what you do.

When someone is coming into the country, an immigration officer needs to see someone's face.

In a school, it's very difficult to teach unless you can look at your pupils in the eye.

Cameron was referring to the recent case of a London judge who ordered a Muslim defendant and witness to remove the niqab - covering all the face except the eyes - throughout her evidence, while allowing her to wear it during the rest of the trial. He ruled that it’s crucial for jurors to see a witness's face so they can assess her demeanour and expression in order to establish credibility, that some restrictions to Muslim garb are necessary, and that no tradition or practice is above the law.

He ended with a pun, “The niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom”, and called for Parliament or a higher court to provide a definitive statement on it.

Similar public unease has been manifested concerning hospital nurses’ wearing headscarves and veils.

It’s clear that a certain discontent with Islamic dress is growing in Europe. France in 2011 banned Muslim as well as non-Muslim face-covering clothing because it prevents the identification of a person, on the grounds of both security and social communication.

Ban opponents claim it breaches individual freedoms. It does, and so does having a number plate on your vehicle, so if you want to use your car for a get-away after a bank robbery you can’t. That’s a limitation on personal freedom we all must accept in order to live in a civilized society.

The French concern is totally justified. In June this year six men in burqas raided London's Selfridges department store, smashing glass cabinets and stealing high-value watches.

The same ban was attempted in Britain in 2010 with Conservative MP Philip Hollobone’s bill, unsuccessful due to claims that it would breach the Equality Act.

Two weeks ago the Italian Swiss canton of Ticino voted in favour of a burqa ban.

It will be a difficult battle, with two steps forward and one step back. In France the ban has caused riots and violence. Back in Britain, the city of Birmingham’s Metropolitan College, which had for some time had a policy forcing students to remove veils, hoodies and hats while on its premises to be identifiable for security reasons, was made to retract it in September by a planned mass demonstration against “'Islamophobia” and an online petition signed by 9,000. A prospective student started the row by complaining to her local paper that she was being discriminated against.

While the debate over female Muslim attire has in recent weeks dominated UK headlines, a student in South London’s Bromley College, asked to remove her cap for identification and security reasons, refused to do so unless Muslim women removed their headdresses too, rightly complaining of double standards.

When defending their presumed “right” to act like Muslims, the followers of Muhammad sometimes let their guard down and reveal something about themselves.

Britain’s Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne, pointing out that the government should consider an Islamic dress ban, did something that you don’t see often. Very timidly, he hinted at reciprocity, a thorny issue for Muslim sensitivities, by saying:

That would apply to Christian minorities in the Middle East just as much as religious minorities here in Britain.

The chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation Mohammed Shafiq responded that he was "disgusted" by Browne's comments.

What disgusted him? The proposed, very mild exception to the kid-glove treatment that Muslims receive over here or the slight indication that Christians should not be massacred over there?


Photo Peek a boo! by Justin Hall (Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0).

Video Image of Britain's Colonisation

If this is not the essence of colonialism I don't know what is.

A bunch of non-British pontificating on what the core values of Britain are or should be. We have here, on a BBC programme, one of the endless series of debates on "what is Britishness" that have been part of the UK public discourse only since the arrival on these shores of vast numbers of people belonging to the ethnic, religious and geographic groups represented by most debaters in this video.

Can you imagine 60, 100, 200 years ago people having discussions on what Britishness was? Everybody knew what it was until mass, uncontrolled immigration from the Third World started and never stopped.

I found this comment to the video on YouTube spot on: "all because you non-whites have a British accent it doesn't make u British".

That being born and bred in this country does not provide a national identity or guarantee national loyalty, as is too often wrongly accepted, is demonstrated by an Asian man in this discussion. He openly declares that he was born and educated in Britain but nevertheless his sense of identity is precisely not having that identity, indeed he goes as far as saying that Britishness means not having an identity.

He was also very good at tying himself in (il)logical knots when he told a Hindu woman that her way of thinking was "unBritish". How can you define what is unBritish if you haven't defined "British", since in his opinion that word is tantamount to nothing?

It's disingenuous of "Professor of Poetry" Benjamin Zephaniah to say that multiculturalism has been part of Britain since the time of the ancient Celts, Picts and Romans, although that claim is a staple of the usual pro-multi-culti argument.

What he's referring to was not multiculturalism. That was war of different peoples against each other. The Celts were in Britain first, then they were conquered by the Romans. After the Romans eventually left, the Celts fought against the Angles and the Saxons, and finally retreated to Wales, Scotland and Cornwall. Then it was the turn of the Vikings to war with the Anglo-Saxons, and after them the Normans invaded and dominated England.

It was violence and invasion, and it was bloody.

Make no mistake. Current immigration levels and the imposition of multiculturalism are entirely new historical phenomena without any precedent not ony in the history of Britain but also of Europe.

It is an experiment carried out on the skin of the indigenous populations. Like all experiments, it can very badly go wrong, and there are numerous signs everywhere that it is.

And, as the TV debate in the video above truthfully represents, the natives are marginalised voices in this experiment and the decisions made about it, while the ethnic (for now) minorities have a much greater weight.

This video shows the new reality of the country: invasion and colonisation.