Ebola Could Mutate into an Airborne Virus; "Bar Entry from Affected Countries" Says Liberty GB

Tuesday during a House of Lords debate Labour's Lord Robert Winston, a medical doctor who has presented scientific TV programs, said that Ebola could mutate into an airborne virus that is caught like a common cold.

He was reacting to Health Minister Earl Howe's remark at the House of Commons that the Ebola risk to British people "remains low".

At the moment the disease is passed through bodily contact or fluids such as blood and sweat, but the contagion risk would increase if the virus became airborne.

Lord Winston asserted: "I am slightly concerned about the possible risk of seeming a little complacent about saying that this is low-risk. We know that viruses mutate, for example, and we know that the Ebola virus can mutate."

He was echoing a similar concern expressed on US television by an expert on the Ebola virus, Purdue University virologist Dr. David Sanders, who has been studying this virus since 2003.

Sanders made his concern known after – in the first person-to-person transmission of Ebola on US soil - Texas Presbyterian Hospital nurse Nina Pham contracted the virus from Thomas Duncan, a Liberian patient who, if proper controls had been in place, should not even have been in America . The associate professor of biological sciences explained: “So we actually have the data that show that Ebola enters into lung tissue from the airway side. This was done with human lung tissue. And it enters by the exactly same side of the cell as influenza enters cells. So it clearly has that inherent capacity to get into the lungs from the airway”.

In another interview he had warned: “So this argues that Ebola is primed to be able to have respiratory transmission... We need to be taking this into consideration – what if. This is not a crazy what if. This is not a loud what if.”

The US Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), a global leader in addressing public health preparedness and emerging infectious disease response, about a month ago had already reported: ”We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.”

Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, harshly criticised in the States for their mishandling of the crisis, seem to start accepting this possibility.

The heightened risk of contracting Ebola due to respiratory transmission, if confirmed, will and should put more pressure on British authorities to stop potential carriers from entering the UK.

President Obama has been accused of putting American lives at risk for the sake of political correctness, by refusing to suspend travel visas from Ebola-affected countries.

Here in the UK, Public Health England and Border Force officials admitted that there is no fixed plan on how to deal with people who have visited affected countries but refuse to give details or to have their temperature taken.

Screening for Ebola has started at British airports but it emerged that the process is voluntary.

Keeping in mind that “After Ghana and Gambia, the UK has the third highest risk globally because of the large number of people and flights from the epidemic region to London”, the Liberty GB party believes that the first step to protect the British public is to bar from entry to the UK people from the Ebola-stricken countries.

Biggest Scientific Study Suggests Life after Death

"First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study", headlines The Telegraph, going on to say: "Southampton University scientists have found evidence that awareness can continue for at least several minutes after clinical death which was previously thought impossible".

Does this prove that there is life after death and that God exists?

Of course not, but it shows without a shadow of a doubt that there are many phenomena and events that science doesn't explain about the nature of consciousness and of the mind in general.

Someone's answer to that migtht be that science will one day explain everything: but that belief requires a deep faith in itself. Even though the object of that faith is science and not God, faith it is.

What is paradoxical about the way in which atheists - "unbelievers" is a misnomer, as they do believe without empirical or rational foundation in many things -, since 19th-century positivism to today's Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, have associated decline of religion with progress of science is that the advances in the latter, if anything, have demonstrated to us how many things in the universe, life and mind science doesn't understand, most notably their origin. And there are very good reasons to predict that it never will, as they probably require other constructs, other ways of thinking and other kinds of explanantion.

The connection between the brain, a material object, and the mind, or rather how the physicality of the former can produce the non-physicality of the latter, has not become clearer the more it has been studied and researched by science, but in fact the opposite has occurred: the questions have multiplied, while the answers have diminished in proportion.

It's perfectly true that it's in the nature of scientific investigation that every new problem solved, every new question answered gives rise to new problems and questions, which inspired one of the greatest philosophers of science, Sir Karl Popper, to title his intellectual autobiography Unended Quest.

But there is a difference between the type of investigation in which science excels, where satisfactory theories that can survive rigorous tests are reached, and the type of investigation which displays an exponentially increasing discrepancy between problems and their solutions.

What the neo-positivists of the early 20th century, like the Vienna Circle - thinking that they were following Ludwig Wittgenstein but in fact misinterpreting him -, were saying was that questions which cannot be answered by mere logic and empiricism (hence one of their names, "logic empiricists") should not be asked and pursued. Metaphysics and theology were nonsense. This was a way of limiting all intellectual search of knowledge to science.

This position has serious limitations. First a logical one: it is a self-contradictory position. If anything beyond the realm of science is nonsensical, what these philosophers (and their heirs today) are saying is nonsensical too, as it does not limit itself to logic and empirical evidence: they are engaging in metaphysics as well, albeit to oppose another metaphysical view.

And this takes us to its second serious limitation: if even people who have postulated boundaries for intellectual investigation cannot confine themselves to them and remain within them, that by itself is an indication that those boundaries are too narrow and unsatisfactory. And that science cannot provide all the answers that are necessary for a curious mind to be satisfied.

Even more, what if science itself, as it seems to be the case the more it expands and deepens, points to something outside itself?

From The Telegraph article:

The largest ever medical study into near-death and out-of-body experiences has discovered that some awareness may continue even after the brain has shut down completely.

It is a controversial subject which has, until recently, been treated with widespread scepticism.

But scientists at the University of Southampton have spent four years examining more than 2,000 people who suffered cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria.

And they found that nearly 40 per cent of people who survived described some kind of ‘awareness’ during the time when they were clinically dead before their hearts were restarted.

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

Of 2060 cardiac arrest patients studied, 330 survived and of 140 surveyed, 39 per cent said they had experienced some kind of awareness while being resuscitated.

Although many could not recall specific details, some themes emerged. One in five said they had felt an unusual sense of peacefulness while nearly one third said time had slowed down or speeded up.

Some recalled seeing a bright light; a golden flash or the Sun shining. Others recounted feelings of fear or drowning or being dragged through deep water. 13 per cent said they had felt separated from their bodies and the same number said their sensed had been heightened.

Dr Parnia believes many more people may have experiences when they are close to death but drugs or sedatives used in the process of rescuitation may stop them remembering.

“Estimates have suggested that millions of people have had vivid experiences in relation to death but the scientific evidence has been ambiguous at best.

“Many people have assumed that these were hallucinations or illusions but they do seem to corresponded to actual events.

“And a higher proportion of people may have vivid death experiences, but do not recall them due to the effects of brain injury or sedative drugs on memory circuits.

“These experiences warrant further investigation.“

Dr David Wilde, a research psychologist and Nottingham Trent University, is currently compiling data on out-of-body experiences in an attempt to discover a pattern which links each episode.

He hopes the latest research will encourage new studies into the controversial topic.

“Most studies look retrospectively, 10 or 20 years ago, but the researchers went out looking for examples and used a really large sample size, so this gives the work a lot of validity.

“There is some very good evidence here that these experiences are actually happening after people have medically died.

“We just don’t know what is going on. We are still very much in the dark about what happens when you die and hopefully this study will help shine a scientific lens onto that.” [All emphases added]

It's Not Bias that Makes US Whites Wary of Blacks

Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1.

These are the words of Charles Gallagher, professor at La Salle University in Pennsylvania and "a sociologist who studies race", according to a CNN article on guns-race relationship.

The assumption is that Americans are biased against black people.

The reality is very different. The picture above, taken in August of this year, shows some of the over 30 members of the all-black Huey P. Newton Gun Club "gathered to march through South Dallas with rifles, shotguns, and AR-15s. The group eventually entered a restaurant with their weapons while Dallas police officers were inside eating lunch."

But the police hardly looked at them.

Sociologist Gallagher doesn't accuse white Americans buying a gun of being racist en masse, only of "being human, of unconsciously absorbing stereotypical attitudes about black men and violence that are as old as America itself."

But here as well what he says is far from the truth. You don't find those stereotypical attitudes in US white culture, dominated by political correctness and guilt feelings about American past.

Quite the opposite. Hollywood portrays much more frequently whites than blacks as criminals. The mainstream media are so sensitive to this issue that The Associated Press Stylebook, containing the United States' (and internationally) most authoritative guidelines for reporting, prescribes:

Racial identification should not be included in any story unless such reference is clearly relevant to the story or when part of a detailed description of a fugitive.

Gun Watch comments:

The downplay of black predominance in crime is so great, that most people in urban areas now assume that if the race of the perpetrator is not mentioned, they are black. It is an open joke. The AP attempt to prevent a stereotype, has become emblematic of the social engineering by the old media. It has had some effect, but reality overrides it.

The reality is represented by the official statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice:

[For homicide] The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).

American blacks perpetrate almost 8 times more murders per capita than whites.

And this is not the only relevant figure. You'll find more of them here: US Racist and Capital Crimes Have a Black Hue .

London Says "Ban Jihadis" as New Terror Plot Is Discovered

Last Tuesday 7 October counter-terrorism officers and armed police have arrested four jihadists plotting a "significant" terror attack in London, and are still interrogating them.

One line of enquiry is that the group was plotting a Mumbai-style gun attack in the capital.

Scotland Yard and the MI5 suspect that the plot was linked to the Islamic State, the first plot directly inspired by the IS. At least one of the four men in their early 20s arrested had recently returned to Britain from Syria.

The police are convinced we are in a more intense phase of Islamic terrorism, increased by the threat of Muslim fighters coming back from their involvement in the Syria and Iraq violence.

Referring to the latest foiled plot, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, speaking to BBC London Radio, gave a grave warning: "[I|t is a quite serious case.

"It is one of a series of arrests that we have had over the last few weeks which taken together for me confirm that the drumbeat around terrorism has changed.

"It's a more intense drumbeat - we are having to be more interventionist and a lot of it is linked back to Syria and Iraq."

It looks like public opinion is getting the message loud and clear, as a Wednesday's YouGov poll showed that three out of four Londoners (74%) think that Britons who have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with extremist groups should be banned from returning to the UK.

This is what my party Liberty GB says, and it's been part of our policies regarding Islam since the beginning of the present crisis.

If we break down the survey results, it's interesting to see that women (at 77%) more than men (70%) are in favour of banning jihadists from entering the country.

But only 49% of people aged 18-24 support it, which is the unmpteenth confirmation that lowering the voting age is a bad idea, and it should in fact be increased.

In the last few weeks extra armed patrols have been employed all over London due to fears of increasing Islamic terrorism.

This plot has been foiled, but how long before another one cannot be stopped and we have a new atrocity?

And how long before the public realises that Islam is the problem and the number of Muslims who are sworn enemies of Britain - tiny minorities or not - is very large and counting?

Politically Correct Language Thoughts

If a prostitute is a sex worker, is a thief an expropriation worker? And a hitman a dispatch worker?

If a homosexual is gay, is a necrophiliac happy?

If Before Christ is Before the Common Era and Anno Domini is Common Era, is Jesus Christ a common good?

If a person who criticises Islam is suffering from Islamophobia, is a person who criticises him suffering from Islamophobiaphobia?

If someone opposed to Third World immigration to the West is a racist, is someone in favour of it a Westist?

If believing that a woman should cook is misogynist, is believing that a man should do the dishes misandrist?

If someone who researches evidence on the subject of the Holocaust is a Holocaust denier, is someone who is engaged in research on any historical subject a history denier?

If a person who doubts anthropogenic global warming theory is a climate change denier, is a person who doubts flat earth theory a flat earth denier?

No Free Speech in English Schools?

New, dangerously anti-free-speech regulations have come into force in English schools on the 29th September 2014. They are contained in the new Independent School Standards regulations, which change the legal framework for academies, free schools and private schools. Ofsted has been asked to enforce the same minimum standards for all other schools.

Among them are the requirements that schools actively promote:

(v) further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions by enabling pupils to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures;

(vi) encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010.

The former is very good in theory, if we didn't know that the "tolerance" and "respect" are not mutual but one-directional, at the expense of British culture.

As for the latter, the new standards will only be met if a school in England "actively promotes" the rights enshrined in the Equality Act.

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage, explains what this innocent-sounding regulation means in practice:

As a result, schools will undoubtedly be put under pressure to promote same-sex marriage. Advice from a senior QC confirms this.

Indeed, the Government Consultation Documents are specific about what these "protected characteristics" are. A clue: think of words that are often used in conjunction with the suffix "phobia".

a. Para 3.2.2
b. “The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristic (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example… failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school”.

The protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (s4 Equality Act 2010).

Hart elaborates:

This all conflicts directly with previous good guidance issued by the Government. But earlier reassurances can’t disguise the fact that schools will now have to comply with the new minimum standards...

If schools were required to promote respect for people as people there would be no problem. But the additional requirement of “paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010” transforms the duty in an alarming way.

One of the ‘protected characteristics’ in the Equality Act is sexual orientation. It could easily be alleged that a teacher who says “I believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage” has shown a lack of respect for people of a same-sex sexual orientation.

Schools will come under immense pressure to endorse same-sex marriage in order to comply with these regulations. Since the equality rights must be “actively promoted”, they will undoubtedly change what is taught in schools.

Under existing equality law, schools cannot discriminate against pupils but governments have carefully excluded the school curriculum from the Equality Act. The regulations break the seal around the curriculum for the first time. Now activists could launch a discrimination claim over the content of lessons.

This is why the Association of School and College Leaders has warned about the harmful implications for freedom of expression in schools.

The Government keeps talking about “British values” but seems to think this means promoting political correctness.

In its alarming consultation document, the Government lets slip some of its thinking.

3.2.2
PART 2 – Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of students

… Schools will be expected to focus on, and be able to show how their work with pupils is effective in embedding fundamental British values. ‘Actively promote’ also means challenging pupils, staff or parents expressing opinions contrary to fundamental British values.

It’s astonishing that the Government thinks schools should challenge the personal beliefs of parents for being contrary to political correctness. This could lead a head teacher to reprimand a parent who tells their child that marriage is for a man and a woman.

The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristics (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example where girls are disadvantaged on the grounds of their gender; failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school.

As we know from recent history, reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely described as ‘homophobia’. Does the new equality requirement mean a school must discipline or dismiss a teacher who voices support for traditional marriage? Will parents of prospective pupils be interrogated about their beliefs before their child is granted a place at school?

The plans also slip in another attack on parents by demanding that in future private schools must conform to ‘national norms’ rather than the expectations of parents.

Any school with a religious ethos which upholds traditional marriage will now have to defend itself against the new rules. Schools could be harassed by inspectors or even have their governors removed by the Secretary of State.

The regulations are a fundamental change of approach in our education system, which have been slipped out under the radar. It is vital that these dangerous plans are opposed and exposed. [All emphases added]

In short, the new regulations are written in such ambiguous terms that any opinion about an institution - like same-sex marriage - may be taken as a lack of respect for some people - homosexuals.

As John Bowers Q.C. explains:

The Regulations are not framed as a duty to promote the protected characteristics but instead as a duty to promote respect of people, having particular regard to those protected characteristics. It adopts much of its language from the human rights case law (tolerance, respect etc). It is however a small step as a matter of interpretation to elide the respect for a person to respecting the beliefs and practices of the group to which that person belongs and this is especially so given the reference to active promotion, a concept to which I refer below in more detail. It may also be said that the words “paying particular regard” shift the duty beyond that of merely respecting people since otherwise it could have been framed simply as a duty to respect persons. [Emphasis added]

Mr Bowers also remarks that the curriculum is in danger of becoming politicised,

because respect for some protected characteristics (or more correctly respect of those with different protected characteristics including faiths and beliefs) may be highly contentious. The law has thus far stayed steadfastly outside the classroom door (and indeed from promoting respect in the classroom) and this has been the policy of governments of each political colour. [Emphasis added]

It's been an article of faith of successive governments that the curriculum should not be a political football and that teachers should not even potentially be the subject of litigation. But all this could be an unintended consequence of the amendments.

Mr Bowers provides examples of situations in which teachers may fall foul of the standards because what they say may be perceived as a lack of respect for people who hold the corresponding beliefs: portraying jihad negatively, dismissing the concept of man-made climate change, making jokes about veganism. He concludes:

The danger of litigation is exacerbated by the vagueness in the proposals arising from the concept of active promotion.

41. The inevitable result is to open teachers up to increased scrutiny, pressures and complaints. There is a real risk of major litigation over what happens in the classroom. Further the contents may undermine their academic freedom.

I find the concept of "protected characteristics" entitling the persons who possess them to "particular respect" a bit politically-correctly sinister, implying that some groups of people are more equal than others. We already know that Muslims are more equal than non-Muslims and homosexuals are more equal than Christians - we've seen it repeatedly demonstrated -, but now it could be enshrined in government's school regulations.

In the end, all this means one thing: much more power to the government and less freedom of expression to people. We are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and plenty of progress on that route has already been made.

First USA-Developed Ebola Case, UK Has Third Highest Risk Globally

Bushmeat eaten in West Africa can be a source of Ebola

This news is from America, but the threat is present in Britain too.

There has been a first case of Ebola diagnosed within the United States, and it's a man from Liberia who should not have been in the US, named Thomas Eric Duncan. He is now being treated in a Dallas hospital, in Texas, isolated and in critical conditions.

His is the first case of someone developing Ebola outside the tropics. Mr Duncan was infected in Liberia and became ill after flying to Dallas.

The UK magazine New Scientist claims:

Epidemiologists have been warning that this could happen since early in the Ebola outbreak, which is concentrated in three countries in western Africa, and say the risk will only increase as cases start to skyrocket.

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in the USA explains why the man's visa should have never been issued:

Duncan is a 40-something, single, unemployed Liberian who applied sometime in the last year for a visa to visit his sister in the United States.

That is five strikes against his application:

1.Single
2.Unemployed
3.Liberian (5th highest overstay rate of any country in the world)
4.Has recently resided outside of his country of citizenship, displaying weak ties there
5.Sister living in the United States.

Together, all these factors should have weighed very heavily against the issuance of a visitor's visa to Duncan. He clearly appears unqualified.

In 2013, more than 3,500 non-immigrant visas were issued to Liberians. This number has grown steadily since 2009, when just over 1,300 were issued. Most are issued to tourists and business travelers. A relatively high percentage do not return, but settle here illegally to join a well-established Liberian community (many of whom have won green cards in the visa lottery). [Emphasis added]

In addition to the high risk that Mr Duncan presented of overstaying his visa due to his weak ties outside the USA, his coming from Liberia, one of the countries most afflicted by the current Ebola outbreak - the worst in history -, should have dictated extra precaution.

Reportedly, travelers to the United States are simply being questioned about their contact with infected people and are checked for a fever. In contrast, three African countries (Namibia, Kenya, and Zambia) have banned travelers from the countries that are experiencing the outbreak (Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea).

But, despite a letter from congressman Alan Grayson suggesting that for the duration of the outbreak the US should bar from entry citizens of the Ebola-stricken countries and any foreign national who visited one of them within 90 days before seeking entry to the United States, Obama doesn't seem interested in controlling immigration in the face of any danger to homeland security, be it terrorism, foreign criminal cartels, or a deadly epidemic.

A comment to the article on the CIS site quoted above showed no hope in the Obama administration:

Our government is failing us. Nothing new though. It has been going on for 6 years now.

The UK is in an even worse situation:

Alessandro Vespignani of Northeastern University in Boston and his colleagues have rated the risk of different countries around the world importing cases of Ebola. After Ghana and Gambia, the UK has the third highest risk globally because of the large number of people and flights from the epidemic region to London.

In September, the risk for importing a case to the UK was around 25 per cent, and slightly less for the US.

On the lookout

Doctors and hospitals in the UK have been told to be on the lookout for possible cases, says Peter Piot of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. [Emphasis added]

But so far, efforts in Britain seem to be focused on helping the countries of West Africa and discussing what the global community can do to provide an effective international response, and not on barring from entry to the UK people from the Ebola-stricken countries.

Black Gangs: Memphis Police Giving Up on Public Safety

What's happening in America? A race war fought only on one side seems to erupt in its cities every so often, maybe more frequently than we hear about.

"Another Teenage Mob Terrorizes Southern Town: ‘Memphis Is Going to Burn if They Don’t Control These Children’" headlines The Blaze, echoing a similar episode of a few weeks ago.

As in the UK when paedophiles are Muslim and their victims white, so in the US the mainstream media try to underplay the fact that the gangs and the attackers are black and the victims they choose for their knock-out game, in a city like Memphis whose population is 62.6% African American, are predominantly white.

Hence WREG-TV reported:

Three people were attacked by a large group of teenagers Saturday night.

Can we be more specific?

“Hold on, they got a white dude,” exclaims the woman capturing the cellphone video.

Memphis' black youth gangs are so terrifying and crime levels are so high that last year the Memphis Police Association installed billboards saying “Danger: Enter At Your Own Risk – This City Does NOT Support PUBLIC SAFETY.”

What Islam Is and What To Do about It

The following only reflects my position and not necessarily that of my party Liberty GB.

Islam has been distorted by Western politicians and media to such an extreme point that this doctrine is almost completely the opposite of what is being described as.

It is not a “religion of peace”: it is a non-religion of war.

It is not a religion in the sense that we in the West understand, through the experience of our own religion: Christianity. It doesn’t make human beings better, but worse.

Whereas Christianity establishes a separation of powers between church and state, Islam is a political ideology. Men’s laws are imperfect and should be rejected. Only God-given law, Sharia, should rule the state. Notice that “law” here doesn’t mean “moral law”, but the country’s legislation. Sharia has to be enforced with all available means, peaceful or violent, democratic or totalitarian.

Islam’s holy scriptures say - and real Muslims believe - that the world will be a much better place for human beings to live in if Islam and its law govern the whole planet. Under Islam’s domination, there will be justice, equality and all the good things that communists have also promised humanity. And in both cases (Islam and communism), followers are prepared to cause mayhem and slaughter to attain this utopian “paradise on earth”.

Peace will be achieved when Islam reigns supreme, having fought many bloody wars and conquered the world: there will be peace only when there are no more enemies of Islam. Hence the profound misnomer “religion of peace”. This is what Muslims actually mean when they use that description for their religion, knowing fully well that the overwhelming majority of Westerners will understand it in a very different sense. Islam's "peace" is similar to the pax romana, the peace existing in the Roman Empire when all populations had been conquered.

That this is the reality of Islam is confirmed by the Quran, the various reports of Islam’s prophet Muhammad’s teachings, deeds and sayings called “hadith”, and Islamic jurisprudence - the interpretation (ijtihad) of the Quran and sunna by Islamic jurists (Ulema) and implemented by the rulings (Fatwa) of jurists on questions presented to them.

It is also confirmed by the exceptionally violent history of Islam in its 1,400 years of existence, as well as today’s breaking news both in Britain and worldwide.

In these circumstances, it is suicidal for Western countries, including Britain, to ignore what Islam is and to do nothing about its spread.

The British political class is (or pretends to be) ignorant of Islam and has no idea of (or is too afraid of losing votes to put into practice) what needs to be done.

A good approach would be a strategy based on the “zero tolerance” policy of Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in New York, which in a few years achieved such an astonishing reduction in crime in delinquency-ridden New York as to be called “one of the most remarkable stories in the history of urban crime” by University of California law professor Franklin Zimring.

No offence, however insignificant, was tolerated any more, starting from graffiti and broken windows, as doing so would give the offenders the wrong signal - a weak reaction from the authorities - and therefore encourage them to go on to more serious offences.

The “zero tolerance” policy, in addition to its effectiveness, has also the advantage of allowing graduality, by starting from small infractions against current British laws and thus giving us the possibility of warning Muslims that further and more serious offences will not be tolerated. At the moment, Muslims are allowed to break the British law in innumerable ways. All we need to do, at the beginning, is just to enforce the established law.

We should combine severity with graduality. At first we have to introduce measures that simply require the application of laws already existing.

Examples of these are the law prohibiting polygamy, at present widely disregarded, with the UK authorities turning a blind eye to its violations among the Muslim population. More than that: polygamy is now de facto part of British legislation due to a change in the inheritance law which lets multiple wives inherit from their husband.

Another way of creating a parallel legal world for the benefit of Muslims-only was a loophole introduced by the previous Labour government to allow Muslims to take out a sharia-compliant property mortgage without paying interest or stamp duty, which makes it cheaper for them and has been exploited by non-Muslims who discovered it, causing a minor uproar.

Again, female genital mutilation is an Islamic practice against British jurisprudence that only very recently has started being prosecuted.

A further good example is halal meat. This is meat from animals slaughtered according to the Islamic ritual which, like the Jewish one, does not permit the proper stunning of animals before slaughter. British legislation imposes pre-stunning to make animals unconscious and prevent (or at least minimise) their suffering.

But both Muslims and Jews are exempt from legal requirements to stun animals prior to slaughter.

In this case too we should send a clear signal that existing British laws must be respected and no exceptions will be admitted. We should close those loopholes.

Just upholding present regulations will go a long way to contain the Islamic problem.

The measures that only demand the application of current laws should be chronologically followed by more advanced measures, requiring the introduction of new legislation to deal with any issues specifically caused by the vast immigration of Muslims, as they increase in number, vociferousness and intolerance.

An Islamic Symbol on the Australian Flag?

I've found the above picture on Facebook, posted by an Australian FB page called "Preserving Islamic Rights on the Gold Coast - PIRGC", self-described as "the righteous and proud voice of the Islamic community within the Gold Coast [a coastal city in southeastern Queensland on the east coast of Australia] and surrounding areas".

The message in the graphic is so preposterous that it's hard to judge if it's genuine or fake. The least credible part is:

We do not ask that Christmas be cancelled as we are not one to ruin peoples fun, however the word "Christ" must be removed from all shopping centres and Christmas icons, we hereby declare that from this day the Christmas tree shall be known as the Wintertree.

A website claims that PIRGC is a hoax, which has posted other outrageous demands:

[PIRGC] has demanded that the Gold Coast mayor incorporate Islamic prayers into the Anzac Day Dawn service to 'honour fallen Islamic diggers'. It also proposes that an Islamic symbol be included on a newly designed Australian flag. It even suggests that an entire Islamic suburb to be called 'New Palestine' and complete with a 'Refugee Ferry Port and Processing Facility is to be built in the area.

According to the Gold Coast Bulletin, the PIRGC page may be part of a campaign to stop the building of a local mosque at Currumbin Waters, on the southern Gold Coast.

This is the real good news of the story: the Gold Coast City Council has received about 2,200 objections to the plans for the mosque, a record number. Over 4,000 people have also signed a petition ­opposing the mosque. Opponents have campaigned against it on social media and built a fighting fund.

Area city councillor Chris Robbins said that the PIRGC page is bogus and not set up by the Islamic community, adding that she contacted Facebook to have remarks ­attributed to her removed from it, which was done.

The truth, though, is that we can't be sure one way or the other. Reading the posts on the Preserving Islamic Rights on the Gold Coast Facebook page, it does have all the appearance of a fake, a creation by non-Muslims to ridicule Islamic demands on Western societies.

But, at the same time, similarly ludicrous requests have been made by Muslim groups and individuals living in the West. So, it's really difficult to make one's mind up. It could be the case of art imitating reality - a politically-motivated joke - or reality imitating art - Western Muslims reaching surreal and unbelievable levels of arrogance encouraged by the appeasingly weak response of the indigenous infidels.

For instance, the Hoax-Slayer site that claims to have "debunked" this page gives reasons that are far from conclusive, as they could as well apply to an authentic page established by Muslims.

For example: "The claims in the Page's posts are nonsense.", "Its ridiculous claims clearly indicate that it is a troll page", "The false and inflammatory material published by the page". All these are activities that real Muslims are perfectly capable of.

This site clearly doesn't know if we are in the presence of a troll page. It may be the case, but it may not. Hoax-Slayer just tries to protect the followers of Muhammad from "anti-Muslim hysteria" and to prevent "inciting hatred and bigotry and damaging relationships between Muslim groups and the wider Gold Coast community".

Is calling Christmas tree "Wintertree" absurd? Yes, it is, but eerily similar things have already been done. When we can't tell fact from fiction to this extent, it says a lot about the degree of multicultural drivel and Islamisation we have reached.

Hard Left Tries to Assault Farage

They don't assault - unless prevented by the police - only the English Defence League (EDL) now. The extreme Leftists have been attacking even the moderate UKIP, showing that nothing short of Leninism satisfies them.

Two days ago, UKIP leader Nigel Farage was in Rochester, Kent, with the new candidate for UKIP in the upcoming by-election in the constituency of Rochester and Strood, Mark Reckless - who defected from the Conservatives to Farage's party on the last day of UKIP's conference - for a day of campaigning in the constituency.

Reckless will resign his Rochester seat as a Tory MP and fight the by-election as UKIP candidate rather than imposing his choice of party on constituents.

Breitbart London reports that UKIP members gathered outside Rochester Castle and made their way to a local pub called The Crown.

“There was an organised protest by the Conservative Party,” Mr Farage said, “including Craig Mackinlay who lives in Rochester and who was beaten to the Conservative nomination by Mark Reckless.”

“Part of the extreme left who have been busy on social media after they were notified that I was in Rochester today decided to turn up.”

“Because of that I had to be removed quickly from the situation,” Mr Farage said, adding, “Kent Police were excellent”. He explained that the situation would not be taken any further.

There has been an anti-Farage group set up in South Thanet where the UKIP leader has been selected as the UKIP candidate.

At its core are members of the Socialist Worker Party and other left wing extremists who were involved in violent scenes earlier in the year which resulted in a magistrate finding Andrew Scott guilty of common assault.

Mr Farage and his security team have made it clear that they will continue to hold public events despite the threats of violence.

One of the Leftist protesters ran into the front of the pub and tried to attack Mr Farage but was halted by his security team:

Socialism is dying, so it’s no wonder the foot soldiers are starting to appear on the streets, now. Everything will be done to prevent its demise, including much worse than what we see now.

Blogger Ian Thorpe comments:

It is notable that as is the case with EDL and Britain First demonstrations, it is always the left that start the fighting. Are these people so insane they can't control their anger when anyone disagrees with their fascistic world view ... or are they just a bunch of rent-a-mob thugs who are trying to suppress free speech.

This is not the first time. In January, Farage was attacked by Stalin's heirs in Kent, and even physically assaulted with a placard:

The "Nasty Little Nigel" protest was organised by Bunny La Roche who recently resigned from a full time rent-a-mob job with the Socialist Workers Party where it appears she was thoroughly detested by her comrades to form a militant group called Kent International Socialists. Comrade La Roche is the Kent branch of the fascist UAF and has links to other extreme left wing groups. Her Facebook profile lists her "inspirational people" including the mass murderers Lenin, Trotsky and Marx. She attracted criticism even from her own comrades when she shouted "when are you going to die" at a 75 year old BNP councillor.

Comrade La Roche was helped in organising yesterday's violent protest by communist Green Party councillor Ian Driver, perhaps inspired by his party's MP, Caroline Lucas, who was arrested for her involvement with a violent protest against a fracking company last year by left wing extremists. The violent protest also attracted support from the fascist UAF, SWP and Labour activists.

Nigel was left shaken but unhurt after being hit on the head with a placard - an attack that could have had serious consequences as he is still recovering from an operation on his back for injuries sustained from his plane crash in 2010.

Giambattista Vico's Importance for the Anti-Establishment Movement

Saturday 27th September I attended a meeting of the London Forum, which organises conferences with various international authors and thinkers of the New Right or - in the words of one of Saturday's speakers, Mark Weber - the "anti-Establishment" movement. The latter is actually my favourite name, as it does away with the anachronistic distinction between Left and Right. Our opponents he calls the "Establishment".

Four speeches were delivered.

The first was by Mark Weber, historian, lecturer, current affairs analyst, writer, and director of the Institute for Historical Review. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, he was educated in the US and Europe. The IHR has been attacked as a "hate group" and a "Holocaust denial" organisation, but we know that this kind of accusations mean nothing in our politically correct world.

I want to find out for myself. The organisation's website explains:

In fact, the IHR steadfastly opposes bigotry of all kinds. We are proud of the support we have earned from people of the most diverse political views, and racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

The IHR does not “deny” the Holocaust. Indeed, the IHR as such has no “position” on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation...

One prominent American journalist and author who has looked into the critical claims made about the IHR is John Sack, who is Jewish. He reported on a three-day IHR conference in an article published in the Feb. 2001 issue of Esquire magazine. He rejected as unfounded the often-repeated lie that the IHR and its supporters are "haters" or bigots. He described those who spoke at and attended the IHR conference as "affable, open-minded, intelligent [and] intellectual."

The London Forum says that Weber "has appeared countless times as a guest on US and overseas television and radio. He has produced many podcasts, and his many writings have appeared in newspapers, periodicals and websites around the world, and in a range of languages."

Weber's speech was "The End of the American Century: The Accelerating Crisis of the West, and Prospects for the Future". He talked about the impending extinction of Europeans as an ethnic group in both Europe and North America, and the end of the hegemony imposed at the end of the Second World War.

He introduced a 2010 book available only in German: Deutschland schafft sich ab ("Germany Is Eliminating Itself"), by Thilo Sarrazin, a German Social Democratic Party politician, former member of the Executive Board of the Deutsche Bundesbank and former senator of finance for the State of Berlin.

In short, the book's author is as much Establishment as you can get. The book itself is described by Wikipedia as

the most popular book on politics by a German-language author in a decade, [and in it] he denounces the failure of Germany's post-war immigration policy, sparking a nation-wide controversy about the costs and benefits of the idea of multiculturalism.

Pretty good for a social democrat.

The second speaker was Bain Dewitt, described as "a rising star" and the young blogger of The Identity Forum . His speech, "The God of the Whites", was an examination of religion as an expression of racial unity. Bain attempted to see if religion can be the spiritual dimension of nationalist and traditionalist movements.

He was followed by another American writer, Greg Johnson, editor of the website Counter-Currents Publishing. His was a particularly interesting speech for me, partly because I'm Italian and partly for its philosophical nature: "Giambattista Vico and Modern Anti-Liberalism".

Vico is a 17th-18th century philosopher from Naples. Most Italians know of him and his theory of the "corsi e ricorsi storici", or the cyclical nature of history. But he's little known in the Anglo-Saxon world, despite having had some influence, especially on James Joyce's books. Vico's Scienza nuova ("New Science") is the basis for Finnegans Wake.

The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again is very far from the contemporary view of history as progress. Vico, according to Johnson, was exceptional, in that he was the first anti-Enlightenment thinker and the only one of his time, despite being himself an Enlightenment thinker in some ways.

Vico postulated a fundamental law of historical development, that follows the same pattern by evolving through three phases: the age of gods, "during which gentile [meaning "pagan"] men believed that they were living under divine rule"; the age of heroes, when aristocratic republics were established; and the age of men, or what we may call "democracy", "when all were recognised as equal in human nature". Here Vico is a son of his "Enlightened" times, when he talks of the necessity to respect "natural reason" and of "the human rights dictated by human reason when fully explored".

At that point man’s increased powers of reasoning result in a state of anarchy, when everybody considers himself his own ruler and only looks after his own pleasure and short-term interest. Sounds familiar? It must do, because it's a fairly accurate description of what we are going through now, a description which will become even more faithful as decades, nay years, nay months go by.

Then men get tired of that anarchy and “turn again to the primitive simplicity of the early world of peoples”, and to religion. Thus the cycle starts again.

The beauty of it all, said Johnson, is that Vico's view of history enables us to stop trying to mend the present state of affairs, which is beyond repair, and instead look forward to - even accelerate - its end, which will usher a new era.

Or I would put it as "the darkest hour is just before the dawn".

Johnson concluded his speech by saying that, whereas Giorgio Almirante, the leader of the Right-wing Italian party Movemento Sociale Italiano, said, "Julius Evola is our Marcuse, only better", we can say that Vico is our Karl Marx, only better.

Finally, barrister and contributor to Heritage & Destiny magazine Adrian Davies concluded the conference with his speech "Two World Wars and One World Cup: Myths and Realities of the Anglo-German Relationship in the Twentieth Century".

In this year, which marks the hundredth anniversary of what historians have called the first "Western civil war" and the seventy-fifth anniversary of the second, Davies narrated German history until 1914, arguing that the Great War not not caused uniquely by Germany, as the myth goes, but also that Germany was not a perpetual victim either.

It's early days yet. I consider my newly-found London Forum very stimulating. I'd like to see more of it, and in particular what the role of Christianity is in the various ideas represented.

Socialist Destruction Starts with Littering

Today I drove past a small demonstration in front of the University College London in Gower Street.

I didn't know what it was about, but I saw socialist posters.

The pavement, where no more than a few dozens people were standing, was littered all over with paper.

I was reminded of what Liberty GB leader Paul Weston told me at the English Defence League demonstration of a week ago. He noticed how all the litter from the food and drinks of the 400-500 attendees had been neatly piled up in a corner, in contrast to what happens at events organised by the Left.

In Gower Street I saw a confirmation of that.

It doesn't surprise me. In fact, this behaviour is very much in accordance with the spirit of Leftists. What moves them is fundamentally destructive.

History has repeatedly shown that whenever socialists and communists have imposed their rule and made societies in their own image, what resulted was destruction, chaos, starvation and mass murder.

Only people motivated by destructive impulses can not be repelled by the ideology that led to it.

Paradox of the Left

We don’t know any more what is Left and what is Right in politics.

Look at the UK parties: Liberal Democrats are sometimes (for example during New Labour) more Left-wing than the traditionally socialist Labour, which in Blair's times was more Right-leaning than it used to be historically, and which some people (critics? cynics?) used to say was more Right-wing in its policies than the Conservatives.

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the Left, whose very nature was to be anti-Establishment, is now The Establishment, having been effectively in power throughout the West since the end of the the Second World War, whether or not they are in government: they have the ideological power and influence, effectively controlling media, universities, cinema, and other powerful means to influence public opinion through the so-called “popular culture”.



There will be no more Stormings of the Winter Palace, no more revolutions, in the modern world or, at least, in that part of the world that has indeed become modern.

There will be no need for that, because whoever controls the media will be in power. And I could add: not only the old media, but also the new ones, although they tend to be freer and less exposed to censorship.

Two Ways to Look at Reality

There are two basic ways to look at reality: scientific and non-scientific.

The scientific approach, or frame of mind, says: I’ll follow the investigation of reality wherever it takes me, even if I don’t like the results of this investigation; I’ll accept them nonetheless.

The non-scientific approach , or frame of mind, says: I have certain ideas, or convictions, which are dear to me (for whatever reason), and to me they are more important than the investigation of reality and its results; therefore, I will deny those results if they don’t fit in with my convictions.

Non-scientific people are, in politics, utopians, and in all fields are those who believe in superstitions, New Age types of theories, things like astrology, tarot reading, spiritualism and so on.

One thing needs to be added here. People allow themselves to believe all sorts of irrationalities (I don’t think that there exists any idea, however absurd, that has no believer), but only when these irrational notions do not touch something which has a direct connection with that person’s interests. There are exceptions, as usual, but this is the general rule.

Examples: people who say that they don’t believe in science still make use of all science’s applications like technology; people who say that they believe in out-of-body experiences take the car to go from point A to point B, they don’t use those out-of-body powers; people who believe in telepathy use the phone, rather than relying on their ESP powers: I could go on, but you got the idea.

In politics, we can see the non-scientific approach at work constantly. The Left and utopians in general are particularly prone to have it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem of this kind of people is that they mix and confuse two processes which should be kept separate and performed at different times, never together.

The two processes are: understanding reality (or trying to), and acting on reality.

If we want to act on reality, change it, we must first understand reality for what it is, not for what we would like it to be.

“Wishful thinking” is something generally condemned, but nonetheless indulged in continuously.

It is the way of thinking more typical of a child than an adult (magic and similar), and yet many adults have not really overgrown it.

The reason why those two processes should be kept well separate is obvious: if we let our desires, or our mental image of what reality should be, have an effect and interfere while we are still in the process of understanding what is, the resulting understanding of reality will be compromised, and cannot serve its purpose of guiding us in action later on, when we need it.

An example of this is the current attitude of the Left towards the questions of race and IQ. Many leftists wish to deny that there are genetic differences in IQ among human races, despite the overwhelming evidence in support of this; in fact, many leftists even try to deny the concept of race altogether.

And the funny thing about this is that these are the people who generally believe in the evolution theory and Neo-Darwinism, so they are in clear contradiction with themselves.

You can’t have it both ways: either there is a great scheme of things behind nature (a teleology), or there is none, and living beings are products of random processes. If you believe in the latter, you must accept that this randomness, this nature is not politically correct and may have produced human beings not in accordance with your pet theories.

I have even heard defences of that theory of genetic equality among races (that, in itself, is a contradiction in terms) that ran like: “Why should blacks have an average lower IQ than whites?”, bringing back teleology and grand design in the scientific discourse when it serves their purposes. There is no why.

Other people who should know better say: there is no connection between intelligence and skin colour.

There is no conceptual connection, but we are not talking about conceptual connection here. We are talking about genetic connection.

For example, taller humans have on average higher IQs than short humans. It is another case when, conceptually, one sees no association.

But the way genes act is by having chracteristics determined by the same gene (allele) which have no conceptual, or even functional, correlation with each other.

Here again: do you want the blind watchmaker or you don’t?

Atrocities Are One of Our Imports

Technology in the West has enormously advanced, but the human mind, although flexible, is not adaptable to the point of making the rapid changes that may be the consequence or the accompaniment of this technology.

Aeroplanes can now cover distances to the other side of the earth, the opposite hemisphere and remote latitudes in a minuscule fraction of the time it was taking even one or two centuries ago.

But the people transported by the aircraft through huge geographical ranges don't go even near covering the same distance so rapidly and easily in cultural terms.

We have found ways to move people physically far and fast, but not means to make them change and adapt from one religious, cultural, ideological and social milieu to another at comparable speed.

When a man moves from an Asian or African country to Britain he doesn't magically become a different person.

This has resulted in the strange phenomenon, probably to such large extent peculiar to our age, of people in the same street belonging not only to different parts of the world but to different ages in the history of the world. They are living next door to each other, but at the same time they are not only geographically but also historically light years away from one another.

Mass migration from the Third World to the West has produced the paradox that what was portrayed as a humanitarian gesture – the welcoming of destitute people from poor nations to wealthier countries - has had the effect of spreading some of the globe's worst atrocities far beyond their place of origin.

Shocking examples are the Muslim persecution of Christians now imported to Western asylum centres, and the analogous importation of the Islamic practices of paedophilia and sex slavery - in one third of all marriages celebrated in Pakistan the bride is underage - to Rotherham, Oxford and Rochdale.

When Progressives Consider Child-Rape Defensible

Published on FrontPage Magazine

By Enza Ferreri


The umpteenth case of child sex abuse in Britain perpetrated by Muslims, the Rotherham abuse, has understandably left the self-proclaimed “progressives” and multiculturalists in disarray. The Leftist media outlets are on the defensive but still trying to maintain their ground.

Their best weapons are to distract public attention by diverting it to whatever has not been committed by Muslims, and the use of double standards, of which the most shocking example is the differential treatment of Muslims versus the Catholic Church.

The same people, assorted Leftists and secularists, who immediately jumped to the conclusion that all Catholic clergymen are either directly involved in paedophile abuse or in its cover-up are now bending over backwards to deny any connection between the Muslim grooming and sex-slavery gangs and Islam.

An article in The Guardian by Slovenian Marxist psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek, included by Foreign Policy in its 2012 list of Top 100 Global Thinkers (no less), seems to condemn but in fact displays this behaviour. Deceitfully entitled “Rotherham child sex abuse: it is our duty to ask difficult questions”, it covers just about everything but Rotherham – and generally Muslim - child sex abuse.

The word “Muslim” appears twice, “Islam” once, “Islamophobic” once, “Catholic” three times (the same number as “priests” and “racism”), plus assorted “Christian” and “Christianity”.

It doesn’t talk about Islam at all, except to briefly mention women’s second place within it, but immediately preventing the reader from dwelling on the subject too much: “Without blaming Islam as such (which is in itself no more misogynistic than Christianity)…”.

The most ironic part of the piece is where Žižek blames his comrades for doing the same he does:

The left exhibited the worst of political correctness, mostly via generalisations: perpetrators were vaguely designated as “Asians”, claims were made that it was not about ethnicity and religion but about the domination of men over women, plus who are we – with our church paedophilia and Jimmy Savile – to adopt a high moral ground against a victimised minority.

The double standard in this kind of coverage and comment is so gigantic that it’s better described as a total reversal of the truth.

We have on one hand Muslim paedophile and sex-slave gangs who act in total accordance with Islam on many levels. To begin with, Muhammad, the model man for all Muslims worthy of the name, gave the good example by marrying a 6-year-old, Aisha, and consummating their marriage when she was 9. He also owned sex slaves. Both sex with underage, even pre-menstruating, girls and sex slavery – both relevant to the Rotherham case - are permissible in Islamic Scriptures and law. Even today, child marriage is commonly practised in the Muslim world.

In fact, in Pakistan – the country of origin of most of the UK child groomers or their families –,

according to UNICEF, child marriages accounted for 32 per cent of all marriages in the country from 1987 to 2005…

Around 100 million girls are expected to enter into child marriage in the next decade. [Emphasis added]

Pakistan has or has had the world record for paedophilia-related internet searches, such as "child sex video". Child molestation in Punjab, a region of Pakistan where 97.21% of the population is Muslim, has reached alarming levels, and “68 percent [of] girls and 32 percent [of] boys have been the victims of paedophilia.”

Add to all this the contempt which Muslims have for white women, considered as “easy meat” due to the way they dress and their drinking habits, and you can easily see that the disproportionate representation of Muslims among those convicted for child rape, grooming of girls for sex, and child prostitution in the UK – 91%, while Muslims are 4-5% of the total population – is not coincidental.

The arguments for linking the epidemic of paedophile rings in Britain with its Muslim immigrant population are strong, solidly founded and well-reasoned. The bias and distortion of the facts are on the part of those who deny them, contrary to all evidence.

We then have on the other hand an extensive media treatment, that lasted for a very long time, of the Catholic Church as a hotbed of paedophilia, vigorously connecting it to its preaching, including chastity, whereas in fact the overwhelming majority of sex offenders have wives or girlfriends.

In reality, research on the subject shows exactly the opposite. These are the main findings in the USA: Catholic priests who ever abused minors are less than 2%, the same figure for Protestant clergy is 2-3%, and most of the abusers are not clergy or staff, but Church volunteers; the figure for rabbis within organised Judaism is 2-3%.

In secular institutions the abuse is even more widespread.

The most reasonable conclusion is that the Catholic Church, far from being especially connected to paedophilia – which it condemns -, has itself partly succumbed to the ethos of our age, although greatly less than other institutions dealing with children.

While the Left was caught unaware, the British political Right and its warnings about the dangers of Islam have been vindicated by the Rotherham outrage. The UK public, in the middle, may be – ever so slightly – waking up to the reality of the “religion of peace”.

The BBC says:

Islamic State extremism and the Rotherham abuse scandal are fuelling a far-right backlash in the UK, one of the Home Office's most senior advisers on right-wing extremism has said…

But the Institute for Strategic Dialogue claims the government must engage more with the far right.

After what former Rotherham MP Denis MacShane admitted:

Perhaps yes, as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard…

[I] should have done more to investigate child abuse…

maybe “liberal leftie”, “Guardian reader” and “multiculturalist” should finally become dirty words, insults of the same grade as “fascist”?

Saturday 20th September the English Defence League (EDL) held a demonstration in Downing Street in front of the Prime Minister’s residence over this scandal, which I attended.

I had never been to an EDL demo before. Yes, they are working class, heavily tattooed, and - with their flag waving, slogan chanting and raucous singing - closely resembling beer-drinking football fans in appearance and behaviour. But they are decent folks doing their bit in a legal and peaceful way for their own country and all ours, for the survival of Western civilisation. Their courage and commitment are unfortunately not widely matched in the general population.

The EDL's bad reputation in the public perception is largely due to the kind of media reporting we are well used to. In the same way as Christians being slaughtered all over the Islamic world is for the media equally-balanced "sectarian violence", and Israel's reaction to Hamas rockets is "indiscriminate bombing of civilians", so the throwing of stones and bottles at EDL crowds by the Leftist thugs of UAF (Unite Against Fascism, an offshoot of the Socialist Workers Party) becomes for the BBC and mainstream press "clashes between the UAF and the English Defence League".

Just witness this ABC News report in which the “hate next door” in the title incongruously doesn’t refer to radical Islam, but to the EDL that tries to protect us from it.

The leader of my party Liberty GB, Paul Weston, looking at some litter from the food and drinks consumed by the 400-500 people attending the demonstration, tidily kept in a corner, pointed out to me how you never see that at events organised by the “liberals”, where garbage is left all over the place.

Liberty GB is considering fielding as a candidate in Rotherham at the 2015 British Parliament elections a former Muslim who converted to Christianity.

Paul Weston gave a brilliant, passionate speech in front of the Prime Minister’s residence, culminating in “Cameron, you're a liar and you're a traitor!”

From the pen (a cage would have been better) in which the police wisely kept them, the only contribution to the subject of the Rotherham child-grooming gangs coming from the “counterdemonstration” of the UAF was "Nazi scum!", which is more or less their only "argument" against the critics of Islam.

Media Are Vectors of Atheist Propaganda

The atheism that is currently prevailing in Western Europe has not been a naturally occurring development in the mind of large numbers of people.

It's not, as individuals like Richard Dawkins and the 19th-century French positivist sociologist Auguste Comte would have you believe, an effect of the progress of science. In fact, scientific progress points exactly in the opposite direction. The more we know about the universe, life and consciousness, the more we realise that the calculus of probabilities shows that all these extremely complex natural intricacies and perfectly accurate mechanisms have no chance of having happened by chance.

No, present common atheism is the result of a multidecadal, aggressive, strenuous and embattled campaign by various Leftist and subversive forces and movements, such as cultural Marxism, to destroy Christianity, which they correctly see as their enemy and obstacle in their effort to destroy the West. In fact, the two - Christianity and Western civilisation - are in many ways and senses synonymous, which is why the enemies of one, from Islam to communism, are invariably the enemies of the other.

Then, useful idiots à la Dawkins come along and continue the Leftist subversives' fight for the destruction of Christianity without really knowing what they are doing.

It’s disputed that Lenin actually used the expression “useful idiots” in his works, but whether he did or not is irrelevant. He certainly understood the concept very well and what he did use, if not the words, were the naïve people in Western countries who believed that communism (and its corollary, atheism) were a force for good and helped him in his propaganda.

And Islam can thank all of them, who have made its task of penetration into and domination of the West infinitely easier.

How interconnected and interdependent socio-communism, atheism and media propaganda and brainwashing are can be seen, for example, from the fact that the BBC employs more atheists and non-believers than Christians.

A 2011 internal BBC survey found that just 22.5 per cent of all staff professed to be Christians, while atheists and those of no faith were 23.5 per cent.

The relative numbers of the two groups in the BBC are greatly disproportionate compared to the UK's general population.

In the 2011 Census, Christians were 59% of the population of England and Wales, equivalent to 33.2 million people. Those without a religion were 25%, or 14.1 million.

BBC veteran Roger Bolton, who presented BBC Radio 4’s religious current affairs programme Sunday, said to The Daily Mail:

There is an inbuilt but unconscious bias against religion, fuelled by the fact staff are not representative of the public. It is not a conspiracy but it needs a correction.

This was the first time that the religious beliefs of BBC staff had been disclosed.

Viewers have also claimed the BBC portrays Christians in soap operas or dramas as ‘weak’ or ‘bigoted’.

That's how subtle propaganda works.

BBC's former political editor Andrew Marr spoke in 2007 of the BBC's “innate liberal bias”, and described the Corporation as “a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people compared with the population at large”.

The website Christian Voice related:

In October 2008, the conductor of the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra spoke of an ‘ignorant’ secular liberal minority in the media seeking to drive religion from the public sphere.

In January 2009, the Christian BBC presenter Jeremy Vine told Reform Magazine that it has become “almost socially unacceptable to say you believe in God” on the BBC. He did not think he would be allowed to say that Christ is who he said he was on air.

In July 2006, a veteran BBC executive told a meeting called to address the problem of anti-Christian bias: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’

Stephen Green, National Director of the organisation Christian Voice, commented:

The real problem is not the lack of Christian programming, but the fact that no world-view other than a tedious atheist outlook informs normal programming content. The BBC really should have the decency to acknowledge there are valid points of view other than the grindingly politically-correct anti-Christ atheism held by the majority of its staff.

And we all know - from the way it keeps the public unaware of the dangers of Islam, multiculturalism and mass immigration - how powerful media indoctrination is.

Calls for Ending Unfairness to the English

Before the referendum on Scottish independence and in order to keep the United Kingdom from disintegrating, the leaders of the three main British parties - David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband - made generous promises in return for the Scottish people to vote No to breaking away from the Union.

They promised more powers and money for Scotland. Some say that these promises have come dangerously close to Maximum devolution (Devo Max for short), which means that, except in defence and foreign affairs, the Scottish Parliament gets power over everything.

A source of concern is that these promises - which looked like a sign of desperation when in the last few days of the campaign the Yes camp seemed to stand a good chance of winning - were made without a clear mandate from the electorate and without consulting the English, who may resent being just exploited for their money.

In particular, the Westminster politicians pledged to maintain the notorious Barnett formula, which for over 30 years has been used to allocate British taxpayers’ cash between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland and has been widely blamed for the large public spending gap that exists between England and the three devolved territories.

Even Lord Barnett, the former minister who devised it, called the formula a “terrible mistake” and a “national embarrassment”.

In 2012-13, public spending per head in each of the home nations was:

•£10,876 in Northern Ireland
•£10,152 in Scotland
•£9,709 in Wales
•£8,529 in England

So, public expenditure in Scotland per head is 20% higher than in England, although English MPs have no real say in the governance of Scotland.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) has called for the abolition of the Barnett Formula entirely. It asserts:

In an era of devolved government, such spending gaps have become increasingly difficult to justify. Should higher public spending in some home nations be subsidised from taxpayers elsewhere? Why shouldn’t those areas pay for their own promises through higher local taxes?

The Barnett Formula cannot possibly survive. Little more than a crude back-of-the-envelope rule for splitting annual increases in public spending, back in 1978 it was a short-term expedient. It was never designed to last for thirty years and to bear the public scrutiny and resentment it now engenders.

Jonathan Isaby, Chief Executive of the TPA, added:

English taxpayers want an end to subsidising Scotland and the Scottish Government wants financial control devolved to Holyrood...

Furthermore, as even more power is set to be handed to the Scottish Parliament, the time has come to end the anomaly of Scottish MPs voting on policy for other parts of the UK where Westminster MPs have no such say North of the border. English votes for English laws is the only fair way to proceed.

A revolt has progressively grown inside the Conservative Party against David Cameron’s promises to Scotland, as Tory MPs with English constituencies are not prepared to make their constituents foot the bill.

Rail Minister Claire Perry criticised the “whole raft of goodies on offer for Scotland that will be paid for by us south of the border to appease the Yes voters”. She wrote in her local paper, the Wiltshire Gazette and Herald:

If there is a proposal to allow devolution of local taxation, as well as maintaining the current level of funding as a dollop from the UK Parliament, then that can hardly be equitable for those of us in the Devizes constituency and all other area areas in the non-Scottish union.

Tory backbenchers have demanded an English Parliament. They say that their constituents find the differential treatment between English and Scottish subjects of the Queen unjust and claim that they will not vote in support of the Devo Max.

Michael Fabricant, a former Tory vice-chairman, said before the referendum: “Even if Scotland votes No, serious questions will be asked about the complacent mishandling of the vote by No10 and the incompetence by Miliband.”

Paradoxically, it is English nationalism that may be fuelled by all this.

The English are not amused. Their mood is reflected in this comment to a Spectator blog post:

Why does Westminster think it has a mandate to offer Devomax? Whatever Scotland gets, we want for England too.

£50,000 Wind Turbine Taking 7 Centuries to Pay for Itself

Subtitle: the umpteenth confirmation that governments shouldn't be entrusted with our money.

This was reported last July, but I've only learned about it now.

It's got to be covered, it's too absurd to miss.

On 10 July 2014, the Daily Mail reported the planned axing of a wind turbine built with taxpayers' money - almost £50,000 - and generating only an average of £5 of electricity a month.

It was calculated that it would have required 757 years before its cost was offset.

I'm tempted to say that this must be the most absurd wind turbine ever but, given the huge cost ineffectiveness of these contraptions, I'm not so sure.

This one is a 60ft turbine in Wales, built at the Aberystwyth offices of the Labour-controlled Welsh government in 2009 "with the aim of reducing its carbon footprint".

In November 2013,

[T]he Welsh government said the turbine was part of its ‘ambitious’ green programme which also featured a biomass heating system and solar panels at its Aberystwyth offices.

‘As a result, we have seen a 17 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions over the past two years and are well on course to meet the overarching target of a 30 per cent reduction by 2020.’

Yes, you can expect that from Labour. Another sign of idiocy was its erection in a sheltered valley, away from the windy coast.

The company which supplied it, Quiet Revolution, said it had warned the Welsh government in advance that there was no wind in the area of the site, but the civil servants paid no attention. I don't think that reality mattered to them as much as making an ideolgical statement. And the money wasn't theirs, anyway.

Well, at least this monster of inefficiency is now going to be removed, I hear you say. The Welsh government has seen the light. No. The turbine is to be scrapped only because it broke down in January and then the manufacturer went into liquidation.

Otherwise, it would have stood for another few centuries, provided it survived the catastrophes caused by global warming, of course.

Incidentally, British people pay for wind turbines like this twice: first, as taxpayers, to construct them, and second, as utility customers and given their inefficiency, to subsidise them through higher electricity and gas bills.

The Aberystwyth turbine is not an isolated case:

Earlier this year Rushcliffe Borough Council in Nottingham was criticised after it emerged it spent £30,000 on two turbines which generated only £95 of electricity in 12 months.