Radical Muslim, Moderate Muslim

Well put.

There is also another way to distinguish between Muslims of various degrees of militancy. Rather than the self-contradictory expression "moderate Muslims", invented by the West for tactical (read "cowardly") reasons and not used by the Islamic world, I prefer to call "devout and observant Muslims" the Mohammedans who are usually referred to as "radical and extremist", with the implication that those of them who are not covered by this description are not Muslim in the truest sense.

Ignorance and Illogicality of Many Atheists

I often share on my personal Facebook page posts by Freedom From Atheism Foundation (FFAF) .

This group provides many snappy and ready quotations, slogans and images that are perfectly suited to Facebook and in general to today's many time-poor and attention-span-even-poorer people.

The problem is that somebody who hasn't bothered to take the effort to examine a topic like the existence of God needs much more than a few lines or a graphic, which is why I think that I'll put the brakes on this habit of mine.

The last straw has been the following exchange of comments after I posted the above graphic "Atheist Dark Ages":

Inge Naning Communism is a political correct religion.Has nothing to do with atheism.

Nick D'Aloise Has nothing to do with atheism? That's a stretch.

Inge Naning It's about control.
Atheism is only about not to believe in a god.

Enza Ferreri Atheism is profoundly connected with communism, both ideologically (read your Marx again - or for the first time, as the case may be) and historically.

Inge Naning Karl Marx was a jew and a Bolshevik. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Tsar was overthrown. Then the Bolsheviks came to power. If they used atheism dosent mean that atheists are communists. 90 % of inmates in a prison likes tomatoes. It doesn't mean that all people who likes tomatoes are criminals

Enza Ferreri Correlation doesn't imply causation, true. But, when Marx writes "Religion is the opium of the peoples" and later all states founded on his theories are atheist and ruthlessy persecute and massacre the faithful, you do have causation beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Louis Lalande I guess when Hitler said he was here to do the will of god that makes Christians Nazis? No? Oh, double standards.

I was about to reply to the last comment when I realised that, if I answered each individual comment, this business could go on forever.

It also made me accept that this subject is not suitabe for treatment by way of soundbites.

I don't blame these commenters for not knowing much of history, religion, logic and probably a lot more. The state of education these days is appalling. In addition, they have been subjected to atheist and communist propaganda, going hand in hand, maybe throughout their lives.

But I feel the duty to put things right. What Louis said is factually wrong and logically fallacious.

Let's start with facts. He writes: "when Hitler said he was here to do the will of god that makes Christians Nazis?".

What Hitler meant by "God" has nothing to do with Christianity. Hitler despised Christianity almost as much as Richard Dawkins does.

Nazism tried to establish a religion which was a mixture of different things, but fundamentally it was pagan, therefore much closer to current atheists' heart than to Christians'. It certainly was not Christianity. And the Nazis' actions are as diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Gospels as they can possibly be.

The Nazis were indeed enemies of Christianity and the Church.

I have already covered at length this subject, and, rather than repeating what I've written, I refer you to the articles linked to above.

This brings us to the logical defects of Louis' comment. The other commenter defending atheism, Inge, made recourse to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in logic when she claimed something - I'm interpreting - to the effect that the association of atheism with communism is coincidental. Very likely, judging from the context of all her comments, her total ignorance of Karl Marx and the fact that another atheist of my personal acquaintance had used exactly the same argument, this has all the appearance of a standard reply that ordinary atheists have learned from their betters (but are they their betters?).

Anyone with a minimum knowledge of Marx - Inge doesn't even have that: "Karl Marx was a Bolshevik", she shamelessly declares, whereas the Bolshevik, "majority", faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was established in 1903, when Marx had been dead and buried in London's Highgate Cemetery for 20 years - knows that atheism is one of his foundational principles, and that any society he envisaged had to be atheist as a sine qua non: no atheism, no Marxist society.

In addition, Marx is not only the most influential communist thinker but also the only one who inspired and informed all communist societies that ever existed.

Socialism and communism in general, anyway, are awash with atheism. One of the slogans of anarchism, also called "libertarian communism", for example, is: "No God, no state, no servants or masters."

Even contemporary communists, like John Lennon, imagined

there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

And no religion too...

Imagine no possessions...
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

When atheists who know next to nothing about Marx are confronted with these facts, they have to resort to something else. So they come up with a parallel with a supposedly "Christian" Nazism.

Beside being historically false, as I explained above, this pseudo-argument is also illogical.

I don't need to pursue this point as the claim is based on a factual untruth. But I want to, as it shows how often these supposed "freethinkers", who have made a stand for reason and logic, in defending atheism fail miserably on both.

Even if Nazism had been Christian - which is thoroughly false -, in this case postulating that the two - Nazism and Christianity - were related more than just coincidentally would indeed be a blatant example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There is nothing connecting them inherently, causally, ideologically, doctrinarily. So much so that it would have been impossible for Nazism to be Christian. Which is why it wasn't.

Ethics and Christianity Syllogism

Premise 1
Ethics consists in subordinating the short term to the long term. The longest-possible term is eternity. A doctrine that makes you think in terms of eternity provides the greatest-possible frame for ethical thought and behaviour.

Premise 2
An ethical doctrine that includes eternity will maximise ethical effects, provided that it teaches to do good. If it teaches to do bad, like Islam, it does the greatest opposite: it maximises evil thinking and doing. Christianity is an ethical doctrine that includes eternity and teaches to do good.

Conclusion
Ergo, Christianity maximises ethical thinking and doing, compared with both Islam and atheism or agnosticism.

Anti-Semitism Claims Are Made Too Often

No-one doubts that there will be people who hate Jews.

The most obvious example is devout and observant Muslims, who are commanded by their religion to do so. They are also ordered to hate Christians, but for some reason the latter injunction doesn't evoke even a fraction of the emotion inspired by the former, despite the fact that an infinitely higher number of Christians than Jews suffer the consequences of this today.

Incidentally - this is not relevant to the rest of the article -, I've found what I consider a better way to distinguish between Muslims of various degrees of radicalism. Rather than the self-contradictory expression "moderate Muslims", invented by the West for tactical (read "cowardly") reasons and not used by the Islamic world, I prefer to call "devout and observant Muslims" the Mohammedans who are usually referred to as "militant and extremist", with the implication that those of them who are not covered by this description are not Muslim in the truest sense.

Going back to the main topic, the reason why Islamic Jew-hatred provokes much more indignation than Islamic Christian-hatred is not difficult to understand. It's because anti-Semitism is - or rather has become - another buzzword of the politically-correct language of today's ideological orthodoxy. According to this prevailing dogma, being against Christians does not even remotely approach the same level of sinfulness as attacking Jews.

Accusations of anti-Semitism, without reaching the absurdity and scope of charges of Islamophobia, have nevertheless something in common with them. They say: there is a protected group here, designated as victim, that shouldn't be messed with, or else.

This is not healthy, as it doesn't effectively distinguish real Jew-haters from people who simply have criticisms to make which, as in the case of Islam or Muslims, may be directed at Judaism or Jews.

This is something I have observed over time, but a particular direct experience of it brought it home to me more forcefully.

It all started with the short post "Wrong to Have Animals Killed in War" I wrote on this blog a couple of months ago, prompted by the news of an Israeli military dog killed in a Gaza blast who saved her handler's life.

This elicited two responses which - although one is anonymous - I think came from the same people, as they are worded almost identically.

The first you can see on the post page as a comment:

time I took my Jewish support away from LIbertyGB
there were dogs used in WW2
the Isola da [sic] Elba is over-run with homeless cats
they eat live animal sushi in Japan
but look...can we talk about all this instead of being enemies?

The next day an email was received by my party Liberty GB from two Jewish ladies who were supporters, asking: "Can you please remove this blog?"

The rest of the email is a repetition of the above comment, and ends with: "Why pick on us Jews, clearly singled out?"

Now, one can disagree with my opinion. I have been involved all my life in the movement for animal equality, and I know we are a minority. But no-one can say that my post was anti-Semitic.

Predicting that in these days of heightened sensitivities about anything somebody could - wrongly - read it that way, I wrote (and this is the whole of my comment, the rest of the post being two lines of news):

I have to say that I consider immoral to have dogs or other animals take part in military operations - be it Israeli or any other - as they cannot give their consent.

The "non-anti-Israel" disclaimer is one fifth of the entire text.

I didn't scour the annals of war history to find an apt anti-Semitic episode I could exploit in order to express my hatred of Jews, as these ladies seem to believe. The reason why the post was about an IDF (Israel Defence Forces) canine is simply because it's seeing that news item that inspired it. If I had spotted a similar event in the context of any other army I would have written the same, mutatis mutandis.

What is sinister about these responses is their demand of the removal of my blog, whatever that meant. I'm not sure if these ladies actually know how these things work, but it's immaterial. The spirit of strict censorship - anything we don't like must be removed - is there in full view.

Also unpleasant is the remark "the Isola da [sic] Elba is over-run with homeless cats". Since I am Italian, it looks like a clear tit-for-tat and ad hominem attack. They can be excused for not knowing that I am a lifelong animal activist, but not for neglecting to try to find out something about the context before launching themselves into indictments for anti-Semitism.

Just browsing my blog would have shown them that I've written in support of Israel several times, and would have displayed my animal-rights credentials.

It's a small thing, you may say, and I would agree, if it were not indicative of a much wider and greater phenomenon, of which I was reminded when I read the following in Takimag:

He [American Congressman Jim Traficant] also gained infamy (along with Patrick Buchanan) for opposing the deportation to Israel of John Demjanjuk, whom Traficant insisted had been misidentified as notorious concentration-camp guard “Ivan the Terrible.”

Since Patrick Buchanan is the author of a book I'm reading with great interest, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, that made me curious to find out more.

It turned out that the case of Ukrainian John Demjanjuk, first sentenced to death by an Israeli court for being the infamous "Ivan the Terrible" guard in Treblinka, the German concentration camp, and years later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Israel because Ivan Marchenko had been established as the real "Ivan the Terrible", is very interesting.

In the clearly not anti-Semitic Kyiv Post, Ukraine’s English-language newspaper, lawyer Andriy J. Semotiuk writes:

While I was not immersed in the case, over the years I became increasingly alarmed by the legal deficiencies that were evident in the prosecution of his case in the United States, then in Israel and finally in Munich.

I don't want to reproduce here all the story of Demjanjuk and his case, which you can follow by reading the links.

Gitta Sereny, an Austrian author of Jewish descent who investigated and wrote extensively about the Third Reich's extermination camps and is another unlikely anti-Semite, had this to say:

From the start of the trial I was concerned that a man was being tried whose identity was in question. My friend Albert Spiess, the German prosecutor of the Treblinka trial and the trial of Franz Stangl, commandant of Treblinka, considered the identification procedure that had been applied in Israel and which produced the identification of Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible to be unacceptable. He had told the Israelis, who had invited him to testify at the trial, that he would have to say so in court, at which point the invitation, not surprisingly, was withdrawn.

So, Buchanan and Traficant, who as the Takimag article says gained "infamy", were right all along: Demjanjuk had been misidentified as "Ivan the Terrible", and the latter was finally found to be another man, Marchenko.

That didn't save Buchanan and Traficant from being accused of anti-Semitism over this episode.

I repeat what I said earlier: anti-Semitism, like anti-Christianity, exists. But it is bandied about too often and too often wrongly.

The kind of defensiveness that leads to imputations of Jew-hate whenever there is a disagreement is too similar to "Islamophobia" for comfort, and doesn't help to isolate and address the real anti-Semitism as it confuses the latter with so many "cry wolf" false alarms.

Marseille Is No Longer a European City

The city in the pictures is Marseille, France's second largest city, for many years considered as one of the cleanest, most beautiful cities in the world. See what it looks like now.

In her best-selling book The Force of Reason, the great, pioneer counterjihad writer Oriana Fallaci talked about Marseille as a symbol par excellence of the devastation, ugliness and filth brought by the Muslim invasion of Europe.

Europe, she wrote, is becoming unrecognisable. Marseille is "no longer a French city, it is a Maghrebin city".

Arabic ​is the first language spoken in Marseille, and French only the second.

95% of the students in the city's Collège Edgar Quinet are now Muslims.

No wonder Gaddafi once said in a speech that there was no need to invade Europe because in 20 years Europe would be Muslim.

Europe, with its political fear, spiritual decadence and weakness, and obsequiousness towards Islam, is the first battleground for Muslims in their quest to conquer and subjugate the world.

The Apprentice Gets the Sharia Treatment

You know that Islamisation has become a normal part of British life, acceptable and widely accepted, when one of The Apprentice BBC series' would-be tycoons, competing for the quarter-of-a-million pounds that Alan Sugar - now Lord - will invest in a new business idea, is a woman in hijab.

This is a high-profile TV program, and with the X-Factor one of the most popular. The new series has just started Tuesday 14 October.

Seeing this Muslima acting in a typically Western way - namely trying to make tons of money with little concern for anything else, as money is now our God -, discussing fashion issues with the other girls in her team - despite the fact that her market stall only sells "Asian" fashion, of which I suppose her headscarf is an example -, and simply - if you can take your mind off her Islamic headdress - appearing normal, will do wonders to make the British people view the presence of Muslims in their midst as an everyday occurrence, especially for those who don't yet have the pleasure to experience this phenomenon first hand in their streets or countryside. The soap opera East Enders has already done that, but then everybody knows that London is a different country.

Since sooner or later Muslims will be a majority in Britain and sharia will become the law of the country, the BBC, by trying to make us get used to it, is probably thinking that it's doing us all a big favour.

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.