Italy. Double Coronavirus-Conspiracy Twist from Space

By Enza Ferreri

This article was published here: Italy. Double Coronavirus-Conspiracy Twist from Space


Colonel Luca Parmitano, Italian Air Force officer with 25 years of service and 6 space missions behind him, engineer and astronaut of the European Astronaut Corps for the European Space Agency (ESA) since 2009, said he was aware of the pandemic danger posed by the new coronavirus as early as November. Parmitano, who is the commander of the International Space Station (ISS) since 2 October 2019, stated in a 25 April interview:

I already knew since November while I was in space. On board we have a daily connection with the events on Earth, we also have access to the internet and as early as November we had started to follow the first infections, initially only in Asian countries, then after my return the first contagions in Europe.

A couple of weeks later, in a second interview, Colonel Parmitano confirmed what he had already revealed:

Already in November we were aware of this probable pandemic and above all its seriousness that was spreading like wildfire in Europe just before my return.

These declarations have started a number of speculations, casting doubts and shadows on Italy's Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte (pictured above with Trump): how is it possible, then, that Giuseppe Conte, who also has privileged access to secret services' intelligence, knew nothing about it?

David Rossi on defenseonline.it posed this rhetorical question, explaining that the Prime Minister in November couldn't possibly know less than the ISS commander.

How, therefore, did Mr Conte find himself so unprepared, even though he knew of the epidemic over three months before the moment it erupted in Italy? Why has he not taken precautionary measures, such as subjecting the soldiers who participated in the Wuhan games on 18-27 October to a medical examination? If he did, what were the results? If he didn't, why not?

All this fuelled in Italy the conspiracy theories - which, despite the common narrative that wants them to be fruit of mad or evil imagination, like all theories may be good or bad, true or untrue until further investigation - that knowledge of the coronavirus threat was kept secret.

Fast forward to the 25 May, when the ESA Italia Twitter account posted a "clarification by ESA astronaut @astro_luca regarding the recent media reports concerning him". In it Parmitano admitted to an error in his time reporting, due to the fact that on board the ISS they don't use a calendar. So, he confused months and what he thought was November was in fact February.

Immediately all the "fact-checking" websites, conspiracy-theory hunters and the general Left-wing brigade screamed: "Fake news!".

Not so fast. David Rossi on Difesaonline again pointed out something that didn't seem right in this explanation, for example:

Since 1965 Omega, now owned by the Swatch Group, has put on the wrist of astronauts in human participation missions the masterpieces of Swiss watchmaking excellence. One of them is the Speedmaster Skywalker X-33, especially designed for space explorers and tested and qualified by the European Space Agency (ESA).

It was developed to satisfy those who, like astronauts, use special functions such as: three different time zones, chronograph, timer, MET (Mission Elapsed Time), PET (Phase Elapsed Time), three alarm clocks and, last but not least, the perpetual calendar. The watch is clearly visible on the wrist of Colonel Luca Parmitano on the occasion of at least three interviews from space during the Expedition 61 mission.

The officer, however, in the ESA release (see link) states that "on board the ISS we do not use the calendar, but the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The year starts with day 1 and ends with day 365, and events are performed according to this schedule. Consequently, it is possible to confuse one month with another since we never refer to it, but we use the UTC day". Does it mean that he never looked and did not use the functions of his watch developed specifically for the needs of astronauts?

Colonel Luca Parmitano then says that on board the ISS he had access to "news agencies and large television networks". Did he really never notice that these brought him the news by indicating, in a corner, so-to-speak terrestrial dates and times, allowing him at every broadcast to easily link events to specific months?

Add to it that, while it's relatively easy to confuse days, it's much more difficult to confuse months; that he posted on Facebook as many as 35 times in November and 41 in December and it's hard to believe he never once noticed the date; that through all this there were the Christmas holidays, if he needed a reminder of the period of the year. Add all this, and the plot thickens.

David Rossi again:

How can one forget the wishes for a Happy Christmas and the thoughts "for those who are away from their family", expressed on board the ISS just before the Festivity? And the greeting video call to the singer Jovanotti at the end of December? And before that, didn't he get excited when talking to a big star like Paul McCartney in early December?

Maybe he did not get excited but surely he was proud when, at the beginning of NOVEMBER, he had a contact with our President who is also someone from his same region [Sicily], Sergio Mattarella?

SOURCES AND PHOTO CREDIT
Libero Quotidiano
Difesaonline: Is It Possible Conte Didn't Know?
Too Many Things Don't Seem Right
Services Warned USA, NATO Allies and Israel

Coronavirus, New World Order, Archbishop Vigano SOS

By Enza Ferreri

This article was published here: Coronavirus, New World Order, Archbishop Vigano SOS



I tend to accept restrictions if they are justifiably motivated by serious health dangers.

I must admit, though, that an episode raised my alarm about the motivations of our political leaders when in Lombardy, in Italy, police tried to interrupt a Mass which was attended by 15 people in a large church where they could keep safe distancing, in addition to wearing face masks and gloves. One of them, explained the priest later in an interview, was a parishioner who had just buried his mother, without funeral due to the lockdown, and brought a few more unexpected people.

Compare that with a situation which arose a few days later, 25 April, that in Italy is called "Liberation Day" (Festa della liberazione) and celebrates the fall of fascism. In various parts of Italy marches, rallies and meetings were held which didn't respect the lockdown regulations. Nevertheless authorities on the whole turned a blind eye.

A clear example of double standard, which shows that probably health concerns are not as important for those who govern us as political and ideological considerations, not to mention questions of who has more power.

This is effectively expressed by the phrase: "Just wave a red flag, and everything becomes possible". Or, before the law some are more equal than others.

The New World Order

The New World Order is one of those concepts that the mainstream media consider a paranoid fruit of overactive imagination, particularly coming from the Right end of the political spectrum.

However, that the notion of a new global order has been developed and held by influential people over the last decades is amply documented. This is an idea that tries to undermine not only nation but also family, traditional ties, religion, moral values.

I’m choosing to reproduce here only a handful of quotations from sources that Leftists and so-called progressives, who are always hunting for “conspiracy theorists”, trust, but there would be many more.

Dr George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), a United Nations agency, from 1948 to 1953, according to Wikipedia ‘developed his strong view that children should be raised in an "as intellectually free environment" as possible, independent of the prejudices and biases (political, moral and religious) of their parents’.

I remind you that collective education of children in society is an old communist idea going back at least to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, espoused by the latter in 1884 in the book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

Of Chisholm, who was a Canadian, the Canadian Encyclopedia also says that he “had attacked traditional morality and religious teachings for instilling guilt, fear and prejudice in children. In his view, these teachings produced immature adults incapable of free, rational thought and ultimately bound for war.”

And Edric Lescouflair writes about him in the Harvard Square Library in these terms: ‘Characteristically, Chisholm brought his message to a world audience by stating, “The world was sick, and the ills from which it was suffering were mainly due to the perversion of man, his inability to live at peace with himself. The microbe was no longer the main enemy; science was sufficiently advanced to be able to cope with it admirably. If it were not for such barriers as superstition, ignorance, religious intolerance, misery and poverty.”’ This is also in Wikiquotes.

Chisholm’s claim that the microbe was no longer man’s main enemy because science was able to cope with it admirably rings particularly risible, if not tragically sinister, in these times when a microbe, in the guise of a coronavirus, is keeping the human world under confinement and holding world economy to ransom.

Then we have US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott writing in Time magazine on 20 July 1992 in an article headlined America Abroad: The Birth of the Global Nation: “I'll bet that within the next hundred years… nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- "citizen of the world" -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.” You can also read it here.

And don’t let’s forget popular and celebrity culture, which in the modern world has got to the position of having an enormous impact, especially on young and vulnerable minds.

John Lennon expressed the mentality of our age by thinking he had surpassed God (remember his “We are more popular than Jesus Christ”?), and he translated the New World Order idea into a pop song format with Imagine : “Imagine there’s no countries.” And added the encouraging “It isn't hard to do”. It’s certainly easier now than then, thanks partly to people like him.

It goes on: “Nothin' to kill or die for. And no religion, too. Imagine all the people livin' life in peace. Yoo, hoo, oo-oo. It’s easy if you try”. Now that we are moving in his recommended direction, it doesn’t look like the paradise on earth that Lennon had imagined it to be, despite all his self-alleged God-like qualities, does it?

An Appeal

All of the above is my way of introducing an Appeal by the Italian Arc Mgr. Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States 2011 to 2016.

The document was published on 7 May and has been undersigned by almost 1,000, including Robert Francis Kennedy Jr, many Cardinals, Bishops and prelates, doctors, researchers and scientists, academics, intellectuals, associations, lawyers, authors and journalists.

It is open to be undersigned to everyone who agrees with its content.

Below is an extract from the Appeal:

We have reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements. The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.

We also believe that in some situations the containment measures that were adopted, including the closure of shops and businesses, have precipitated a crisis that has brought down entire sectors of the economy. This encourages interference by foreign powers and has serious social and political repercussions...

We ask the scientific community to be vigilant, so that cures for Covid-19 are offered in honesty for the common good. Every effort must be made to ensure that shady business interests do not influence the choices made by government leaders and international bodies. It is unreasonable to penalize those remedies that have proved to be effective, and are often inexpensive, just because one wishes to give priority to treatments or vaccines that are not as good, but which guarantee pharmaceutical companies far greater profits, and exacerbate public health expenditures. Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted foetuses.

We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against Covid-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool. Let us also consider the blatant contradiction of those who pursue policies of drastic population control and at the same time present themselves as the savior of humanity, without any political or social legitimacy. Finally, the political responsibility of those who represent the people can in no way be left to “experts” who can indeed claim a kind of immunity from prosecution, which is disturbing to say the least.

We strongly urge those in the media to commit themselves to providing accurate information and not penalizing dissent by resorting to forms of censorship, as is happening widely on social media, in the press and on television. Providing accurate information requires that room be given to voices that are not aligned with a single way of thinking. This allows citizens to consciously assess the facts, without being heavily influenced by partisan interventions. A democratic and honest debate is the best antidote to the risk of imposing subtle forms of dictatorship, presumably worse than those our society has seen rise and fall in the recent past.

Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church. Ecclesiastical authorities have never refused to collaborate with the State, but such collaboration does not authorize civil authorities to impose any sort of ban or restriction on public worship or the exercise of priestly ministry...

…The civil duties to which citizens are bound imply the State’s recognition of their rights.

We are all called to assess the current situation in a way consistent with the teaching of the Gospel. This means taking a stand: either with Christ or against Christ. Let us not be intimidated or frightened by those who would have us believe that we are a minority: Good is much more widespread and powerful than the world would have us believe.

Globalisation and Multiculturalism in Coronavirus Times

By Enza Ferreri

This article was published on Italy Travel Ideas


Many European countries have been seriously affected by Covid-19.

The idea that the movement of great masses of people from their places of origin to new countries could not give rise to critical, not to say disastrous, consequences has now, with the new pandemic, been put to the test more than ever. And we know it has miserably failed the test.

First of all, without globalisation the spread of a virus or another kind of epidemic could have remained localised. The globalisation that is sought after by economic and political powers has made the current pandemic of Coronavirus possible.

Immigration between continents has macroscopically and starkly displayed all its risks and dangers - and not just for the migrants - even to those who’ve been obstinately refusing to see them.

But that’s not all. The response to a pandemic requires the fabric of a society to be compact: everyone is asked to impose restrictions on himself for the collective good, as well as his own.

What’s been happening in these days in Italy, France, Spain and Germany is showing that a society with large numbers of unassimilated, unintegrated migrants is not such a collective body that can count on reciprocal ties and a sense of belonging to the same community and sharing a sense of responsibility towards it.

In all the afore-mentioned countries, which have strict containment and isolation regulations for the whole population, there have been cases of immigrant neighbourhoods or groups who have rebelled against these rules, behaved as if norms of home confinement and of keeping at least one-metre distance between people when out of doors didn’t exist, and who finally became aggressive towards authorities who asked them to comply with the quarantine order, thus endangering everybody.

French commentator Eric Zemmour reported that his country’s migrant neighbourhoods have responded to the Coronavirus crisis by rioting and looting supermarkets, and he talks about addressing “the migrant community’s dangerous and violent refusal to cooperate voluntarily with measures to control the spread of contagion”.

Something similar is happening in Italy, where migrants have been seen crowding the streets deserted by Italians, who force themselves to remain indoors.

In Spain, migrants at the Immigration Centre of Aluche, Madrid, rioted against the confinement of Coronavirus. They climbed on the roof crying "freedom, freedom" and announcing the start of a hunger strike.

In Germany on 16 March, 10-20 residents of the centre for asylum seekers in Suhl in the state of Thuringia rioted, climbed over the perimeter fence, threw missiles at emergency services and police. They also removed manhole covers in an effort to escape and reach the city through the sewer system, and threatened to burn down the asylum seekers centre.

The next day, about 30 residents gathered near the main gate waving ISIS flags and tried to break down the gate, while they used children as human shields by placing them in the first row.

The over 500 residents of the facility as well as all staff had been quarantined since Friday 13 after a man in the centre tested positive for Coronavirus. The measures have led to several days of disturbances, according to the RTL broadcaster.

In Italy too there have been cases of migrants with Coronavirus infection in asylum seekers centres, for example in Milan and Bologna. In these areas many complaints have been recorded about migrants who, much more regularly than Italians, did not respect the confinement and quarantine regulations.

The current, unforeseen crisis also paints a clear picture: our European societies are not as strong, indestructible as we and the people who came here from the Third World thought. We may now discover that we don't have the resources to cope with this pandemic created by globalisation and worsened by uncontrolled and illegal immigration with all the social chaos that it involves.

SOURCES
France and Germany Coronavirus Norms Migrants Defiance
France Immigrant Districts Not Complying with Coronavirus Norms and Measures
Coronavirus Spanish migrants riot
Germany Immigrant Centre Riot
Police Video Conference of Germany Immigrant Centre Riot
Italy Bologna Migrants Centres Coping with Coronavirus
Italy Milan Infection in Migrant Centre
PHOTO CREDIT
RAIR Foundation

Italy: How a Coronavirus Crisis Became a Disaster

By Enza Ferreri

This article was published on Italy Travel Ideas


Italy early in the coronavirus crisis was the first country in the world for number of Covid-19 cases, with its number of confirmed infections increasing very rapidly day by day, and the whole country was placed under lockdown, as is well known. It is important to understand what happened to provoke this exceptional crisis.

In a previous article we saw that, for fear of labels of racism, by not having quarantined all people coming from China, a measure recommended by the World Health Organisation and followed by many nations, the Centre-Left Italian government has opened the door to the epidemic.

Then we saw that the uncontrolled immigration that for a long time has particularly hit and shaken Italy among the countries of Europe, in addition to bringing security and crime risks posed by undocumented migrants' free circulation, has now turned into another possible dynamite waiting to explode: due to China-Africa close trade ties and the vast presence of Chinese in the continent, Africa can become an incubation venue and transmission channel for coronavirus, which means that lots of African immigrants to Italy may be carrying Coronavirus.

The migrants arriving in Italian ports may have the coronavirus without their knowledge - and without ours. And still without their knowledge they could contribute to spread it throughout Europe.

The consequences, in that case, would be potentially lethal given the absence of sanitary bulwarks in almost all African states.

The infection might spread to Europe through Africa perhaps via Italy.

African Countries at Risk

The director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was very clear when he said that the "biggest concern", in addition to the epidemic itself, is that the virus may reach "countries with weaker health systems" least able to contain it, and the whole of Africa undoubtedly falls into that category.

Although, when news of the epidemic from China first started spreading, there were no confirmed cases of Coronavirus in Africa, there are now, and escalating fairly quickly.

Doctor Giovanni Rezza, specialised in hygiene and in infectious diseases, senior scientist at the Istituto Superiore di Sanita' (ISS) in Rome, and Director of the Department of Infectious, Parasitic and Immune-mediated Diseases, has confirmed that Africa could represent a problem: it is a very populous continent, he said, and has fragile and weak points in the health chain:

African states do not have the same network as European laboratories. And the various types of fever that people can get could be confused with other infections and not be recognised as Coronavirus. This is why international organisations should be on the alert.

Africa, except for a few specialised centres, does not even have the means to recognize this new virus.

Health authorities and researchers fear that the Coronavirus could circulate undetected in Africa, where less advanced health systems could quickly be overwhelmed by a local outbreak.

It's therefore necessary to close the Italian ports to migration.

PHOTO CREDIT
La Gazzetta di Reggio

Le Pen Leads in Poll on Next President

An opinion poll among 947 people on the French electoral roll, with a margin of error of about 2.5%, conducted for the French magazine Marianne, shows Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National party, leading in first round of France’s next presidential election.

The FN performed very well at the last European Election in May, getting almost 25% of the French vote, while President François Hollande's socialists only got 14%.

The Front National wants France to leave the euro and would support France's continued European Union membership only under certain, very strict conditions - including primacy of French law over EU law, abolition of the Schengen Area of free movement of people, €0 net contribution to the EU budget and nationalisation of agricultural policy.

It is firmly opposed to unrestricted immigration, on which its policies are:

Reduce legal immigration 95% to 10,000 people annually, no amnesty or benefits for illegal immigrants or their children, abolition of jus soli, and citizenship only to be granted to foreigners’ children who are legally resident, speak French, are law-abiding and show “proof of assimilation.”

According to the latest poll, carried out online by Ifop on July 21 and 22, Le Pen would attract 26% of the vote, more than former president Nicolas Sarkozy's 25%. From Bloomberg:

The socialist candidate, President Francois Hollande or Prime Minister Manuel Valls, would finish third and would fail to make the second round with 17 percent. The poll did not measure second-round voting intentions.

Marine Le Pen's father and founder of FN Jean-Marie Le Pen reached the second round of the presidential election in 2002 with 17%, beating socialist Lionel Jospin and only losing in the second round to Jacques Chirac.

Marine took over the Front National in 2011 and has been trying to render it more moderate, although some say that the transformation is more superficial than fundamental.

Neverthless, for a while she and Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch anti-Islam party PVV and one of the best-known figures of the European counterjihad, seemed bound to form a publicly-funded alliance of like-minded parties in the European Parliament.

What’s Next for Britain?

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


After an earthquake, we gather the pieces hurled and scattered all over the place by the magnitude of the event, we put them together and reconstruct.

The big question in British politics is who is going to win the 2015 General Elections for the British Parliament, which will produce the majority to form the new government.

The local and European elections have been much anticipated before and analysed at length afterwards because they are supposed to give an idea of the next occupant of 10 Downing Street, the British Prime Minister’s residence.

But the new four-main-party-system that UKIP has introduced by storm makes these predictions much more complicated. UKIP has been the nightmare of pollsters and number crunchers, who admit defeat in appraising the current and, more importantly, future situation.

Without UKIP, it would be relatively easy to forecast next year’s results. If, as it’s often the case, on May 22 the incumbent party in government had fared badly and the opposition well, it would be seen as a sign that it’s time for the usual reversal of roles between them.

But now the Labour Party in opposition, although electorally performing better than the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the government coalition, has also haemorrhaged a stream of votes to UKIP. Therefore its percentage in the polls is not as much higher than the Tories as it should be for a safe victory prediction in 2015.

On the other hand, most votes for UKIP have come from the Conservatives (Prime Minister David Cameron’s party). This means that these two parties of the Right will be forced to share votes at the General Elections too, thus reducing the Tories’ chances to win. But by how much we don’t know, because a certain numbers of people who vote for UKIP at the European Elections won’t do so when it comes to electing the UK Parliament and deciding the next Prime Minister.

It may seem appropriate to choose UKIP, a party which is largely one-issue (leaving the European Union), at the Euro polls, but from the national government many voters, albeit sympathetic to Farage’s views, want something more. They require a wide range of policies that will affect their lives, on the economy, education, health, crime, welfare, housing, employment, and so on. It’s difficult to know how many will desert UKIP for the Tories next year.

The three main parties, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats - often placed in the same bracket and derisively called “LibLabCon” to indicate that what they have in common is much more significant than their differences, giving the electorate no real choice –, inevitably did not understand or take on board the message of the vote.

In order to do so they would have to change what they are to become something completely different. All their existence, aims and policies are predicated on carrying on as usual, offering the country more of the same, the only difference being in degree. Yesterday it was recognition of same-sex civil unions, today the law on same-sex marriage. Today it’s racist to quote Churchill’s anti-Islam words, tomorrow it will be racist describing a pet as “a black cat with a bit of white”.

Incidentally, many votes were lost by the Conservatives to UKIP because of the Tory Prime Minister’s David Cameron insistence on making homosexual marriage legal.

All the three main parties are egalitarian and strict followers of political correctness. They give the public what they want, not what people ask. They vilify people for asking it, explicitly or implicitly calling them names. They never stop to wonder whether people might be right; at most they express sympathy, understanding and “concern” for how people feel, not so subtly implying that those feelings are irrational and based on false perceptions, whereas reality is what the business of politics is all about so those feelings should be disregarded.

This sums up the reasons why many voted UKIP:

Despite all of this, I will vote UKIP at the Euro-elections, and there are two main reasons for this: first, that I wish to carry the message, very strongly, to the LibLabCon alliance that they do not have a right to be in government, they do not have a right to power—something that Labour and Conservatives have, I think, utterly forgotten (leading inexorably to a corruption almost as total as the Republicans and Democrats in Washington).

Some pundits informed us that UKIP’s voters are mostly men, over 50, blue collar. Implicit in this announcement is the view that such demographics should say a lot about UKIP, specifically how bad it must be if it attracts predominantly people of this despicable sort.

It’s reminiscent of the media in the US and elsewhere, which at the time of the presidential elections were highlighting how Mitt Romney was disproportionately preferred by men, with the same ominous implications of backwardness and “uncoolness”.

Similarly, a frequent attack against counterjihad websites is that their readers are mainly males.

I know that, despite being a female, I’ll be accused of sexism and misogyny for saying this. Does everybody ignore or pretend to ignore that the overwhelming majority of philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, musicians, authors, historians, industrialists – in short all those who have pushed the human machine forward, the makers of human progress – have been men? If it had been left only to women, we don’t know how far from cave dwelling we would be today.

For whatever reason, this is simply the historical reality. Socialists, feminists and their useful idiots may think whatever they like about the causes of this 100-percent-true fact, but they shouldn’t be allowed to be so disingenuous as to pretend that women are the only force for improvement and progress in human affairs.

That London is not part of the UK any more, due to its strong immigrant and Muslim presence, and is becoming increasingly so, was confirmed once again by the last vote pattern.

London is the only region where UKIP is still struggling, whereas Labour is doing fine. Immigrants in general and Muslims in particular tend to vote for the Labour Party, which has opened wide the doors of the country to them when in government, is overgenerous in its welfare policies for everyone –natives, foreigners legally or illegally here – and is Islamophile to the point of destruction, sorry, distraction.

This is only one of several cases in which the Muslim vote has shaped European politics in recent times. In some cases it’s proved decisive: the analysis of the various groups’ votes showed that, without Muslims in France, Sarkozy would have won, so the election of socialist Francois Hollande as President was determined by the followers of Islam.

What’s in the future for UKIP and for Britain?

The UKIP will try to get its first Member of the British House of Commons elected on this 5 June, at the Newark, Nottinghamshire, by-election, caused by the suspension from Parliament and subsequent resignation as MP of Patrick Mercer.

European UKIP representatives, including Farage, have said that at the General Elections of 2015 they'll target and concentrate their efforts particularly on those constituencies where they already have councillors or have done well in the local elections. They say that this has been the successful strategy of the Lib Dems, who have been in a similar position of outsiders in the past.

In the long term, Farage aims to repeat the destruction of Canada’s Conservative Party two decades ago, when the rebel Right-wing Reform Party, that many compare to UKIP itself, caused another political earthquake.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Farage said that a Canadian-style Tory meltdown “could happen” in Britain. Canada’s century-old ruling Conservative Party was destroyed overnight in the country’s 1993 election by the populist, low-tax Reform Party, which had been called “racist, sexist and homophobic”, some of the epithets thrown at UKIP, along with the “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” that PM Cameron used for UKIP supporters.

The split in Canada’s Centre Right enabled the Liberals, Canada’s equivalent of our Labour Party, to take power.

But after ten years of infighting, the Reform revolution succeeded. The Canadian Alliance, a merger of Reform with the ruins of Canada’s old-style Tories, led to former Reform official Stephen Harper becoming Prime Minister in 2006.

Farage compared attacks on himself to those on Reform Party leader:

‘They called him a Right-wing extremist, a nutter, away with the fairies, he’ll never get anywhere and what happens? They won one by-election, a schoolmistress way out West, who resisted every bribe and temptation to rejoin the Conservative Party.

‘Now you have a Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who was first elected on a Reform ticket, as were half the Cabinet.

‘Don’t think this can’t happen here. The public want something different. We are catalysing a big change in British politics on fundamental issues that have been brushed under the carpet and ignored by a completely out-of-touch career political class for too long.’

In all this euphoria, we mustn’t forget UKIP’s limitation, first of all that the party’s not opposed to Islam. In fact, it even has British parliamentary candidates who openly advocate Sharia law, like Dean Perks:

"Sharia law, in my opinion, works as a prevention. And prevention is better than cure. If you think you're going to get your hands chopped off for pinching something, you won't pinch it."

A UKIP council candidate who tweeted that Islam is "evil" was suspended from the party. Farage distanced himself from his own immigration spokesman, Gerard Batten, who had proposed a special code of conduct in the form of a charter calling on Muslims to accept equality, reject violence and accept the need to modify the Quran, which Muslims had to sign. And in public speeches UKIP leader is careful to limit his comments on Islam to politically correct ones.

Even more tellingly, membership of UKIP is forbidden to current or even previous members of the English Defence League and other groups who are outspoken on the Islamisation of Britain and dare hinder it.

"Earthquake" in the UK

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


"An earthquake" is how the United Kingdom Indepence Party (UKIP) called what happened Thursday 22 May, when all Britain voted to elect its share of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and various parts of the country voted to elect local councils.

While the results of the Euro Elections were not announced until Sunday to wait for the results of the whole European Union, where some countries voted later, the local elections results were known immediately, and were pretty much as Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, described them: an earthquake.

In a country with a three-main-party system (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats), the UKIP became firmly established as the fourth party. It didn't gain overall control of any local council, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Labour won 338 more councillors than it previously had, the Conservatives were down 231 councillors, the Liberal Democrats took a bashing losing 307, as many as 40 percent, of their councillors, and UKIP went from 2 to an astonishing 163 councillors, turning from a fringe, tiny party into a serious contender for government.

But it was tonight, at the European Elections, that UKIP got a real triumph. Not only it topped the polls with more votes than all other parties for the first time in its history, but also its victory marked the first time in which a nationally-held election has not been won by either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party since 1906.

This historical event upsets all the current paradigms of British politics. For a start, it makes it much more difficult to predict future election results, first of all the 2015 general elections for the British Parliament, the "real" polls that will decide who's going to govern the UK.

A three-party system is easier to understand and forecast than a four-party one. Without UKIP, Labour might have been cast as the next British goverment, benefiting from the dissatisfaction from the supposed "cuts" and "austerity" measures that the present coalition of Tories and LibDems in goverment had to enforce to heal at least in part the ruinously irresponsible economy and welfare policies of the past Labour administration.

Something similar happened in other parts of Europe, hence the BBC's headline "Eurosceptic 'earthquake' rocks EU elections", in reference to the parallel result of Marine Le Pen's Front National which won a record victory in France.

Back in the UK, the Liberal Democrats were almost wiped out from the European Parliament, being left with just one MEP of the 11 they previously had. This is Catherine Zena Bearder, standing in the South East, the largest region in the UK, where my party, one-year-old Liberty GB, got 2494 votes.

These results show a clear shift in public opinion towards a decidedly anti-immigration, anti-European-Union stance.

The reaction of the (previously) three main parties and of the liberal media is interesting because it shows that they simply didn't get it.

They cling to justifications, rationalisations, excuses, pedantic nitpicking, like "it hasn't been an earthquake because UKIP has no control of a single council", or "it's just a temporary protest vote, they'll come back to us".

The Lib Dems project onto the UKIP's future what happened to them. They, never genuinely contemplating the possibility of being in government, were ruined by their experience in power, where they didn't keep their utopian promises to the electorate, and in an act of wishful thinking predict that the same will happen to UKIP.

My favourite is the reaction of Labour. Faithful to their Marxist heritage, they explain everything away with the economy. People on the doorstep tell us that they are not concerned about immigration per se, they say, but only about its economic consequences for jobs, wages, housing and so on.

We'll sort these things out, they continue, the usual Labour way, by wasting more of public money and increasing taxes.

They don't realise that no people "on the doorstep" will tell any Labour representative that they don't want immigration for reasons of culture and identity, not just economics, lest they'll be considered racist by the aforementioned Labour person.

And UKIP took votes from all parties, including Labour, whose traditional base of working-class voters got progressively dissatisfied with it.

People who until now voted for the mainstream, Establishment parties - and people who didn't vote at all - have decided to stop being silent and taken action by choosing a party that says many of the things they think but cannot express.

We all take great hope and encouragement from this trend.

It took UKIP 20 years from its foundation to get to this point, and it struggled for recognition for a very long time.

There was a time when a vote for UKIP was considered wasted, but it turned out to be instrumental in putting pressure on the Tories on the issue of leaving the European Union. There will be a time when voting for Liberty GB will put pressure on UKIP on the issue of addressing the threat of Britain's Islamisation, on which Farage's party has so far been persistently silent.

UK Fact-Checker "Full Fact" Is not Impartial

This post is also in Italian: Il Sito di Fact-Checking Inglese "Full Fact" Non È Imparziale


Like me, you may have been attracted to the reassuringly-named Full Fact website and non-profit company.

It's a fact-checking group, whose tagline is "Promoting accuracy in public debate".

After hearing about it from David Dimbleby on Question Time, I was immediately interested in this site, which I believe follows a trend set by Americans whose fact-checking after, for example, televised presidential debates becomes frenetic.

I am a firm believer in evidence-based reasoning in every sphere, using the scientific method of investigation whenever we can.

In politics as much as in health, in sociology as much as in the environmental subjects, empiricism and logic are what we need.

Therefore I welcomed the existence of this British site, and I read it. Certain things in it didn't seem too impartial to me, though, for example about Portugal's drugs decriminalization laws' outcomes.

So I checked who is behind Full Fact. I discovered that its "core funding comes from three independent charitable trusts: the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Nuffield Foundation and the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation".

A look at The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust's site reveals that it has a strong focus on "racial justice" and "Islamophobia". Its pamphlet The Quest for Racial Justice has the picture of a hijab-wearing woman on its cover, so we know immediately what kind of "racial justice" we're talking about.

It doesn't take much to realize that this is a charitable, Quaker in origin, but politically not unbiased organization, believing in multiculturalism and seeing things only from the perspective of ethnic groups and immigrants, legal or not, and not the indigenous population of Britain.

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust does not define what it means by "racial justice", probably assuming that it should be obvious, and indeed it is obvious what it intends when you see that it is in full support of the Macpherson Report on the death of Stephen Lawrence, which accuses the police of being "institutionally racist" and contains a pearl like this: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person" opening the door to any abuse of the term. Or when you read in The Quest for Racial Justice statements like this:

"Stephen Lawrence died at the hands of racists in 1993... In the meantime, many others have lost their lives in a similar way"

without any mention of the many white victims of non-white racism, about whom the national media are totally silent, a situation so scandalous as to prompt even Muslim multiculturalist and leftist Yasmin Alibhai Brown to write an article whose headline says it all: "When the victim is white, does anyone care?" (The article has then been removed from the website of London newspaper Evening Standard, apparently the only link left is on an online library).

It's clear that for this organization victims cannot be white. Yet, the mentioned article reports, "Almost half of the 58 known victims of racially motivated murders between 1995 and 2004 were white".

Yorkshire Conservative Councillor Roger Taylor called JUST West Yorkshire, a group affiliated with The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, an "ultra-left organization".

Discover the Networks gives this description:

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) was founded in 1904 by its namesake, a prominent Quaker entrepreneur and philanthropist. Viewing the unequal distribution of wealth as a defect inherent in all capitalist countries, JRCT aims to change “the existing power imbalances in society” and create “a better world.” Led by a board whose members are guided by the principles and values of Quakerism, the Trust focuses especially on eradicating the “root” causes of poverty, “social injustice,” and “political inequality”—and not merely on treating “the superficial manifestations” of those problems.

The second major funder of Full Fact, the Nuffield Foundation, has a website that welcomes you with talk of class divide and disadvantaged backgrounds.

The third, finally, Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, supports "vulnerable migrants" and "social change".

The jargon is revealing, the picture is clear.

Full Fact is a bit like Wikipedia, pretending to be impartial and just offering "facts", but the people giving this information have a very specific, culturally Marxist, ideology colouring their fact-checking. I suspect that Dimbleby wouldn't have advertised it otherwise.


PHOTO CREDIT
Pixabay

"Gays" are More Equal than Christians

UK Prime Minister, "Conservative" David Cameron, has today backed an enormous policy change introducing same-sex marriages in churches in Britain.

Tory MP Peter Bone said the PM’s party was split 50-50 and predicted that several government ministers would vote against homosexual marriage.

He added: “Despite the PM’s assurance, the redefinition of marriage — because of the European Convention on Human Rights — will force churches to marry same-sex couples. This will outrage millions of people and hugely damage the Government in electoral terms.”

Not surprisingly, both Labour and the other party in the government coalition, the clueless Liberal Democrats, support "gay" marriage, and the LibDems have tried hard to push Cameron to back it.

Christian Today newspaper writes in the article PM's assurances on gay marriage 'meaningless':

Mr Cameron said today that he was a "massive supporter" of marriage and did not want gay people "to be excluded from a great institution".

What hypocrisy and what arrogance! Showing that you are a "massive supporter" of something by depriving it of its meaning, opening the way to its destruction.

I think that the most likely reason for Cameron's decision to back homosexual marriage in church was a quid pro quo, a compromise with his LibDem coalition partners who wanted a reform of the House of Lords. He could not agree to that, but in an exchange of favours he accepted to go ahead with "gay" marriage, which the Liberals had been calling for.

Some commentators have also acutely pointed out that, in the polls, popular support for Cameron is well above that for the Tory Party, and so it is in his interest to keep a distance from the rest of his party by showing a liberal, modernizing face, which does not cost him anything to do. After all, Christians in today's Britain don't matter.

He also insisted that churches would not be forced to conduct gay marriages if they did not want to.

"But let me be absolutely 100% clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it," he said.

Mr Cameron added that MPs would have a free vote on the issue.

His assurances of church protection, however, have failed to convince the CLC [Christian Legal Centre], which provides legal support to Christians experiencing discrimination.

CLC director Andrea Minichiello Williams said: "If this moves ahead the courts’ interpretation of equality legislation will not provide any effective protection from litigation for churches who do not wish to perform such ceremonies, whatever the Prime Minister says now. Any such assurances are meaningless.

“At the Christian Legal Centre we have seen countless cases where Christians have been forced out of their jobs for their refusal to condone and promote homosexual practice. Their views have not been respected or accommodated and Mr Cameron has ignored their plight.

“This does not bode well for British Christians if further legislation is passed. Assurances to churches who do not wish to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ fly in the face of all the evidence."

The CLC has itself faced difficulty because of its defence of traditional marriage.

A marriage conference organised by the organisation earlier this year almost had to be cancelled when two venues - the Law Society and the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre - pulled out of hosting it at the last minute.

Both centres said the bookings had been cancelled because the CLC's views on marriage contravened their equality policies.

The organization Coalition for Marriage (they have a petition going that you can sign at their website, as I have done) has declared:

Introducing same-sex weddings in churches and other religious premises is a radical departure from the consultation proposals. Ministers promised that religious believers could not be forced to hold weddings of homosexual couples because it would not even be possible to register them in churches or other religious premises.

But now that promise has been broken. Christians, Jews, Muslims and others will be exposed to the legal nightmare of equality and human rights laws, as well as the intrusion of the European courts. We have no confidence in so-called ‘safeguards’ Ministers will offer.

Legal advice from leading human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill QC has made clear that the only completely safe course for churches will be to stop hosting weddings altogether, a massive change to Britain’s social landscape. He has also shown that, quite apart from the issue of buildings, individual people from any background who believe in traditional marriage face damage to their careers or even dismissal from their jobs, especially teachers, chaplains, foster carers and others in the public sector.

The Bill to redefine marriage will be published in the New Year. We understand there were behind-the-scenes attempts to publish a wafer-thin Bill next week to avoid proper scrutiny of the details by Parliament. Thankfully that seems to have been prevented by internal arguments.

2012 Republican National Convention Second Day

Last night I watched on BBC Parliament the coverage of the US Republican Party's National Convention in Tampa, Florida.

For the first time I saw Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, give a speech. I had heard that he was good (someone even said he was better than Mitt Romney), and indeed he was good.

I also liked many other speakers I saw, especially Fox News' Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, who tore Obama to pieces; Steven Cohen, a small-business owner who spoke on behalf of small businesses oppressed by this administration's taxes and regulations - and the fact that he got government contracts for his company (who he said are only a “minute, fractional” portion of his business) is irrelevant to his arguments; and Ohio Senator Rob Portman, who rightly confronted the left's tendency to denigrate Romney for being a wealthy man, when in fact that shows the entrepreneurial, courage, and leadership qualities of this self-made man who, unlike Obama, has created lots of jobs.

"And yes, he made money," Portman said. "He made it the old fashioned way. He earned it.

"Then you have Barack Obama, who has never started a business – never even worked in business."

Which one, he asked, "knows how to turn this economy around?"

Portman said Obama lacks leadership, blamed him for the Senate's failure to pass a budget, and for the millions of US citizens out of work "or the millions more who have given up looking."

I hope the Romney-Ryan ticket wins, opinion polls or not. I can't imagine how any American might want to re-elect Obama, unless s/he is a sado-masochist bent on the destruction of self and others.

Politics and Islam in Dhimmi Europe

Jihad Watch has published my article Politics and Islam in Dhimmi Europe:

Is Italy going to follow Britain in its path to advanced multiculturalism?

That is what part of the political leadership is trying to do, from Italy's President
Giorgio Napolitano, who said that "it is insane that Italian-born children of immigrants are not citizens" to the leader of the left-wing party Partito Democratico (PD), Pierluigi Bersani, who declared that one of his first moves, if voted into government at the next general election of 2013, will be to grant the right of citizenship to second-generation immigrants.

Some of Bersani's other priorities, as he announced addressing the organizers of Bologna's national 2012 Gay Pride, will be a law to give legal status to homosexual civil unions, a law against homophobia and transphobia, and another to speed up divorce cases. In sum, a real recipe to boost the family and with it the reproductive capacity of native Italians, who at the current birth rate will be reduced from today's 60 million to 37 million in 2050 and 15 million in 2100, when sharia will be definitely easier to implement.

Many comments to the post of this news item, predictably, highlight how the Italian people have very different priorities from Bersani's, like the economic crisis, unemployment, rising taxes and diminishing public services.

The country's current debate about whether to give Italian citizenship to the so-called "new Italians" is important for the problem of Islamization, because about one third of Italy's immigrants are Muslim.

Although Italy is not one of the European countries with the largest Muslim populations, the number of Muslims in Italy, like in the rest of Western Europe, has steadily increased: they were 600,000 in the year 2000, over 1,300,000 in 2009 (35 million in Europe), over 1.5 million (about 2.7% of the population) today, and they are expected to get to 2.8 million by 2030.

France, with 4.7 million Muslims in 2009, remains the continent's most Islamic country, but nevertheless in Italy a new Islamic place of worship is established on average every 4 days. And there are now jihadists with Italian citizenship.

The critics of Bersani's proposals point out that immigrants' children born in Italy, or even immigrants born abroad after 10 years' residence, can already apply for citizenship, the only requisite being that they live permanently in Italy to prevent exploitative behaviour of the welfare system on their part. So what's the need for a new law?

The PD also aims to abolish the crime of illegal immigration, which the party says has been practically made meaningless by the verdicts of the European Court, but still exists as an "abomination" in the Italian legal system.

The blog Qelsi writes: "They [left-wing parties] don't care about Italy and Italians: what matters is gaining power and everything is acceptable to get to Palazzo Chigi, even the Islamization of the cradle of Christianity and the humiliation of the ideals and aspirations of real Italians. Bersani talks about his proposed 'reform', which is in fact our de-Christianization."

The PD and other parties of the left have been accused of being after the immigrants' votes which, in a divided country as Italy is now, may have a big influence. After all, the socialist Hollande in neighboring France was put in office by the Muslim vote, which made the crucial difference. The numerical analysis of the various groups' votes showed that, without Muslims in France, Sarkozy would have won the election.

And the UK has led by example in a big way in this. As unintentionally whistle-blowing speech writer for the Labour Party Andrew Neather was later to reveal in a London Evening Standard newspaper's 2009 article paradoxically in favour of unrestricted immigration:

"What's missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from. It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of [Labour] ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration." [Emphasis added]

He then explains how the "major shift from the policy of previous governments" regarding immigration came after "I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls", which was largely based on drafts of a report by a Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.

The final published version of the report supported immigration only because of the benefits it brings to Britain in terms of labour market; but previous, unpublished versions contained other reasons, he writes:

"Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.

"... Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean…

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. [Emphasis added]

In short, it was an experiment in demographic engineering for political and electoral purposes. Muslims tend to vote for the left partly to get the welfare state money, and partly because socialists suffer from a guilt complex associated with European past colonialism, in their view a moral debt for which native Europeans are supposed to pay back the Third World immigrants beneficiaries.

The chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank Sir Andrew Green said just after the Labour policies revelations: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, Member of Parliament Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, added: "It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

A glaring example of ethnic-oriented electioneering is the maverick ex-Labour politician George Galloway, founder of the Respect party and of the Viva Palestina convoys, who won a by-election campaign in Bradford West, northern England, unashamedly pandering to Muslims.

The Muslim vote in many parts of Europe is already changing the political landscape and creating a new one in its own image.

I'll conclude with an item that may potentially make you laugh or cry. The devout and practicing Muslim Demba Traoré, from Mali, has become in December 2011 the leader of the Italian far-left Radical Party, not new to maverick choices, like that of having the porn star Ilona Staller (Cicciolina) among its candidates elected to Parliament in 1987, coming second in number of votes only to the then party leader Marco Pannella.

The absurdity of having as its new leader - voted almost unanimously - a follower of the theocratic religion par excellence can be seen when one knows that the Radical Party is and has always been ferociously anti-clerical (but evidently only if the clerics are Christian).

The historical head of the party Pannella said it's important that "the Radical Party, non violent, transnational and cross-party, has elected as its secretary a faithful and practicing Muslim - in Rome, in the heart of Christianity, there is a party secretary who is a firm Muslim believer."