Either Europe Will Become Christian Again or It Will Become Muslim

Only a few days ago one of the best known figures of the Italian counter-jihad, Egyptian-born journalist Magdi Cristiano Allam, a former Muslim who converted to Catholicism, announced that, although he remains Christian, he has left the Catholic Church.

In his column in the daily paper Il Giornale he gave several reasons, prominent among which is "Because this Church is weak vis-à-vis Islam":

What more than anything else drove me away from the Church is its religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as true religion, of Allah as true God, of Muhammad as true prophet, of the Koran as sacred text, of mosques as places of worship. It is genuine suicidal madness that John Paul II went so far as to kiss the Koran on May 14, 1999, Benedict XVI put his hand on the Koran praying toward Mecca in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul on November 30, 2006, while Francis I began by extolling the Muslims "who worship one, living and merciful God." On the contrary I am convinced that, while respecting Muslims who, like all people, possess the inalienable rights to life, dignity and freedom, Islam is an inherently violent ideology, as it has historically been conflictual inside and belligerent outside. Even more I am increasingly convinced that Europe will eventually be submitted to Islam, as has already happened from the seventh century to the other two sides of the Mediterranean, if it does not have the vision and the courage to denounce the incompatibility of Islam with our civilization and the fundamental rights of the person, if it does not ban the Koran for apology of hatred, violence and death against non-Muslims, if it does not condemn Sharia law as a crime against humanity in that it preaches and practices the violation of the sanctity of everyone's life, the equal dignity of men and women, and religious freedom, and finally if it does not block the spread of mosques.

This news has attracted national and worldwide media attention, just as the announcement of his conversion from Islam to Catholicism on 22 March, Easter Eve night, 2008 did, when he "received Baptism, Confirmation and Communion in St Peter's Basilica from Pope Benedict XVI".

Allam's position has several Italian (and international) counter-jihad blogs sympathetic to it, carrying articles with titles like Islamic Fundamentalism and the Impossible Dialogue.

But his new decision to leave the Church has also attracted many criticisms in Italy. Journalist Filippo Savarese: "I do not know what could be worse than repudiating one's conversion for (alleged) issues which are in fact mostly 'political'." Politician Maurizio Lupi who was Allam's godfather: "I am sorry, but Christianity taught me to love the freedom of every man and to respect it even when I do not agree with his choices. In this case not even with the reasons (we are Christian for love of truth not for aversion to Islam), but I notice that, unfortunately, this is the attitude of many who say they accept Christ but not the Church".

Gabriele Satolli, candidate to the 2013 Italian general election for the party founded by Allam, Io Amo l'Italia, left the party, calling Magdi's motivations "raving, and therefore impossible to agree with".

Still, although we may dispute whether they are a good enough reason to leave the Catholic Church, Allam's arguments are grounded in reality.

"Having a dialogue" is by definition a reciprocal verb, as "being a sibling". They mean something only if what is true of the subject of the verb is also true of the object, be it a quality, relationship or activity. When a call for dialogue is not met with a response, it is a monologue.

As Raymond Ibrahim points out, the Muslim countries with some of the worst records on their treatment of Christians are also the most interested in interfaith initiatives in the West:

Few things offer surreal experiences as when Islam and the West interact—when 7th century primordialism encounters 21st century relativism. Consider the issue of “interfaith dialogue.” In principle, it is a decent thing: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others trying to reach a common ground and professing mutual respect. But what does one make of the gross contradictions that emerge when a human-rights violating nation calls for “dialogue,” even as it enforces religious intolerance on its own turf?

Enter Saudi Arabia. Birthplace of Islam, the Arabian kingdom is also the one Muslim nation that regularly sponsors interfaith initiatives in the West—even as its official policy back home is to demonize and persecute the very faiths it claims to want to have an interfaith dialogue with.

There are different positions within the Catholic Church with regard to Islam, with a minority of voices, some of which powerful, dissenting from the official stance.

The two positions at the extreme opposites are exemplified by the late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, who was Archbishop of Milan, and Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Archbishop of Bologna.

The former is credited with having anticipated many bishops of Italy and Europe in stretching out an acquiescent hand towards Islam. As early as 1990 he dedicated his Saint Ambrose homely to "We and Islam". In 2001, after 9/11, his Saint Ambrose homely had a title that substituted a clear stance with a list of concepts: “Terrorism, retaliation, self-defence, war and peace”.

On Islam, the most difficult issue of the decade, as well as on many other questions, Martini's position has always been the search for a grey area, a balancing act: “We have to prevent the dramatic scenario of a clash of civilizations”, qualified by “We must not delegitimize the right to self-defence from terrorism and the need to extinguish its hotbeds”.

It is interesting how, replicating the ideological and political alliance between Islam and the Left in the Western lay world, Cardinal Martini, considered a progressive and constantly praised by the mainstream liberal media, was after his death eulogized by the leftist newspaper La Repubblica for having approved of policies ranging “from dialogue with Islam to yes to condoms” and because “he had never condemned euthanasia”.

Writer and blogger Antonio Socci thus sums him up rather unfavorably:

"Everything imposed by ideological fashions found Martini open to dialogue and to all possibilities: 'there is nothing wrong in two people, even homosexuals, having a stable relationship and in the State favouring them', he had said."

At the other end of the spectrum is Cardinal Giacomo Biffi. As early as 30 September 2000, before 9/11, when not many people in the West worried about Islam at all, he delivered a speech at the Fondazione Migrantes seminar, "On Immigration". The following is what he said on Muslim immigration to Italy and Islam:

The case of Muslims

If we do not want to evade or censor realistic attention, it is apparent that the case of Muslims should be treated separately. And it is hoped that political leaders will not be afraid to face it with open eyes and without illusions.

Muslims - in their vast majority and with few exceptions - come here determined to remain alien to our "humanity", individual and social, in its most essential, valuable, "secularly" non-renounceable aspects: more or less openly, they come here determined to remain substantially "different", waiting for us all to become substantially like them.

They have different eating habits (not in itself a big problem), a different holiday in the week, a family law incompatible with our own, a concept of women very far removed from ours (going as far as practicing polygamy). Above all, they have a strictly fundamentalist view of public life, so much so that the perfect identification between religion and politics is part of their unquestionable and inalienable faith, although they prudently wait to become predominant before imposing it. It is therefore not the Church, but modern Western states that must think carefully about this.

I shall say more than that: if our state seriously believes in the importance of civil liberties (including religious) and democratic principles, it should work to make them more widespread, accepted and practiced at all latitudes. A small tool to achieve this goal is the request of being given a not purely verbal "reciprocity" by the immigrants' countries of origin.

In this respect the Italian Bishops Conference wrote in 1993: "In many Islamic countries it is almost impossible to adhere to and freely practice Christianity. There are no places of worship, non-Islamic religious events are not allowed, not even minimal ecclesiastical organizations exist. That raises the difficult problem of reciprocity. And this is a problem that affects not only the Church, but also civil society and politics, the world of culture and even international relations. For his part, the Pope is tireless in asking everyone to respect the fundamental right to religious freedom" (n. 34). But - we say - asking does not help very much, even if the pope cannot do any more.

Although it may seem alien to our mentality and even paradoxical, the only effective and not unrealistic way to promote the "principle of reciprocity" by a really "secular" state, truly interested in propagating human freedoms, would be to allow for Muslims in Italy only the authorization of institutions which Muslim countries actually allow for others.
…

Conclusion

In an interview ten years ago, I was asked with great candor and with enviable optimism: "Are You among those who believe that Europe will either be Christian or cease to exist?". I think my answer then may well serve to conclude my speech today.

I think - I said - that either Europe will become Christian again or it will become Muslim. What I see without future is the "culture of nothing", of freedom without limits and without content, of skepticism boasted as intellectual achievement, which seems to be the attitude largely dominant among European peoples, all more or less rich of means and poor of truths. This "culture of nothingness" (sustained by hedonism and libertarian insatiability) will not be able to withstand the ideological onslaught of Islam, which will not be missing: only the rediscovery of the Christian event as the only salvation for man - and therefore only a strong resurrection of the ancient soul of Europe - will offer a different outcome to this inevitable confrontation.

Unfortunately, neither "secularists" nor "Catholics" seem to have so far realized the tragedy that is looming. "Secularists", opposing the Church in every way, do not realize that they are fighting against the strongest inspiration and the most effective defence of Western civilization and its values of rationality and freedom: they might realize it too late. "Catholics", letting the knowledge of the truth they possessed fade in themselves and replacing apostolic anxiety with pure and simple dialogue at all costs, unconsciously pave the way (humanly speaking) to their own extinction. The only hope is that the seriousness of the situation may at some point lead to an effective awakening both of reason and of the ancient faith.

It is our hope, our commitment, our prayer.

Written in 2000. All predictions confirmed. Truer, if possible, now than it was even then.

Effects of Atheist Propaganda Come Home to Roost

The seeds of nihilism are sown...

I have a suggestion for militant atheist cum zoologist Richard Dawkins about a British (although it has now got to America as well) TV program to watch, that is bound to lift his spirit: The Jeremy Kyle Show.

There he can see exactly the kind of society he is trying to promote and propagate.

People who appear on the show have been living the sort of life which was advertised for £140,000 on billboards all over buses and underground trains across England, Scotland and Wales, in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, York, Leeds, Newcastle, Dundee, Sheffield, Coventry, Devon, Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Swansea, Newport, Rhondda, Bristol, Southampton, and Aberdeen a few years ago for weeks, with the message: "There's probably no God... now stop worrying and enjoy your life": campaign and message that Dawkins totally endorsed.

She [little known comedy writer Ariane Sherine, that the article calls the "brains" behind the campaign] said she wanted to promote her own message that people can believe whatever they wanted. [It certainly takes a great brain to come up with such a formidable idea.]

Speaking at the launch of the campaign in central London, Ms Sherine said the sheer number of donations received had demonstrated the strength of feeling in the UK.

Obviously a vast number of people are never so happy as when they are encouraged to do just exactly whatever they like and indulge in any fancy they may have, reassured in the belief that this is the right course of action by "luminaries" and intellectual authorities à la Richard Dawkins, with the full backing of science, no less, behind this highly satisfactory claim.

The consequences of choices and actions, though, pace Dawkins and that superb "brain" of Ms Sherine, are not just in the afterlife but in this one as well.

...and the fruits are harvested

And the consequences of the "stop worrying and enjoy your life now" lifestyle, when embraced by large swathes of society, can be calculated at the time of the Budget and seen as a form of public entertainment in TV broadcasts like The Jeremy Kyle Show (undoubtedly there are many similar others).

The show's guests have "enjoyed" their lives all right, if by "enjoyment" we intend overeating (this they do not need to declare, you just have to look at them, especially the women), booze, drugs, not working, and above all - by far the most frequent reason that brings them to this TV production which promises them solutions, therefore indicating that this is what has the most serious consequences in their lives - sexual promiscuity.

The expressions, usually uttered by Kyle, "unprotected sex" and "unsafe sex" are sprinkled all over the chats, which are in fact rows and shouting matches. Hearing those phrases makes me shudder. The very fact that we have come to see sexuality as an activity that has to be treated with surgical gloves, that we need to put the mechanistic, physical, even medical, aspects ahead of everything else - because there is little else left - shows our society's general confusion and failure in its sexual ethics.

The show is a carousel of different people who are in fact all the same, exactly like a rotating carousel always represents the same figures.

They need the program to pay for two, recurrent types of test: DNA paternity and lie detector.

Uncertainty about who fathered whom reigns supreme, as about who cheated with whom, how many times and to what level of sexual intimacy: the DNA test is hoped to help with the former, the lie detector with the latter.

Here we have the dream of Richard Dawkins made reality in the flesh of the underclass: no God, no rules, no certainty, no faith, in particular no faith in other people.

Who needs faith when we have science? And who needs trust in a relationship when we have the products of science in the form of DNA paternity test and lie detector test?

Immigration Is Killing Sweden's Welfare State

Swedish Professor Karl-Olov Arnstberg and sociologist/journalist Gunnar Sandelin are about to publish a new book about the alarming situation and consequences of immigration in Sweden. They submitted an op-ed about it to every major Swedish mainstream media outlet, and all without exception refused to publish it. Exactly as the article says, “this is an issue that is not to be discussed.”

That immigration, whose main merit, apart of course from the cultural "enrichment", was always trumpeted by the multicultists and the Leftists as the economic benefit it would bring to the host countries, has in reality been bleeding European economies and exacerbating the unemployment of the indigenous populations, is becoming increasingly evident.

So much so that someone has proposed that European countries have enough justification to expel Third World immigrants, particularly Muslims, on financial grounds alone.

Prominent German journalist Udo Ulfkotte has made it clear: "Muslim immigrants in Germany up until 2007, Dr Ulfkotte explains, "have taken 1 billion euros more out of our social welfare system than they have paid into our system". To give a better idea of the magnitude of this figure and put it into perspective, he adds that the total debt of the German government is 1.7 billion euros. Expelling Muslims, therefore, will help Europe fight its financial crisis."

The article about the new Swedish book described above has been translated by Gates of Vienna, and is really worth reading. Here are the most interesting excerpts:

Sweden is set to burst — the question is when

The welfare state will fall apart within a few years if this situation is allowed to continue. But this is an issue that is not to be discussed.
...
Sweden cannot cope with this much immigration

A professor of ethnology and a sociologist/journalist: Swedish politicians have lost control of immigration. The costs are escalating, the housing situation is desperate, unemployment is on the rise and segregation may be described as dramatic.

In 2012 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) issued approximately 111,000 residence permits.
...
Many illiterates

Immigration has gradually changed. An earlier wide spectrum of immigrants has been replaced by asylum seekers from mainly Muslim countries such as Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan. These asylum seekers are ill-equipped for life in the high-tech Swedish society. Employment statistics show that over 60 percent of the new arrivals and their relatives have a very “rudimentary education”, which means that many of them are actual or practical illiterates. This makes it particularly difficult for them to find employment. According to Eurostat, only 2.5 percent of the jobs are available for them [based on their qualifications — translator] compared with other EU countries where jobs for workers without any formal qualifications amount to 17 percent. This means that there are extremely few jobs on offer for asylum seekers and their dependents who are allowed to stay in Sweden. As a result, the already large employment gap of 27 percent between domestic-and foreign-born persons aged 25-64 is increasing (SCB, 2012). The prestigious English magazine The Economist noted in February that a large proportion of the non-European immigrants that are allowed to settle in Sweden end up living on the dole.

21 percent are refugees

Every asylum seeker is described as a “refugee” by the media. This is not true, because the definition of “refugee” is tied to the Geneva Convention and the Immigration Act. Of all the asylum seekers that were allowed to stay in Sweden under Fredrik Reinfeldt’s prime ministership, up until 2013, only 21 per cent were refugees. If we go as far back as 1980 the corresponding figure is considerably lower, only 10 percent.
...
In recent years the number of individuals that have managed to obtain family reunification visas is three times higher than those that have been granted political asylum. The majority of the family reunification applications involves newly established relationships. In other words, it’s not family reunification per se, but rather partners who are being brought over from the applicants’ former homelands. It should also be noted that Sweden, as far as we’ve been able to determine, is the only country that allows welfare recipients to bring over relatives to Sweden who are also very likely to end up living on welfare. The general rule in the rest of Europe is that anyone who brings over family members or partners is financially responsible for them. According to Minister of Immigration Tobias Billström, fewer than one percent of those that are issued with family reunification visas manage to provide for themselves.
...
Rikskriminalen (National bureau of Investigation) estimated in 2010 that approximately 90 to 95 percent of all the asylum seekers that arrive in Sweden were aided by human traffickers. The asylum seekers come mainly from Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. The traffickers provide believable refugee stories that the asylum seekers can present to the immigration authorities. Asylum seekers are also advised not to show passports or other appropriate ID documents. Subsequently almost nine out of ten applicants have at the time of application not produced a valid passport to Swedish authorities. The refugee policy cannot be referred to as a humane policy as long as Sweden keeps eroding the right of political asylum for the truly needy by granting political asylum to people who are unable to reveal their true identity and their true intentions.
...
In September 2012 fifteen local Social-democratic politicians in the Stockholm region raised the alarm about the housing situation... The reason, of course, was a severe lack of housing... But it’s not just the lack of housing that is problematic. If we leave the Stockholm area and take a look at Katrineholm, the Social Services statistical database shows that of the foreign-born citizens in the city, which in 2011 accounted for 14 percent, 67 percent were on municipal income support. This is a representative figure. In 2011 the foreign-born living on income support (including establishment allowance) were over-represented on the statistics by a factor of 8.6 (or 860 percent), compared to native Swedes.

What is the cost of the immigration?
...Associate Professor of Economics Jan Tullberg, who teaches at the Stockholm School has, in our upcoming book Invandring och mörkläggning (Debattförlaget) [“Immigration and blackout”, Debate Publisher], upgraded the costs to just over three per cent of GDP, which is around SEK 110 billion per year. This is almost half of the overall cost of Swedish health care, or an additional annual net income of SEK 23,000 per employed person.

Tullberg believes that Sweden should curb immigration and do more to get the unemployed back into the workforce. The labour migration from outside the EU / EFTA states largely confirms this: In the last four years, according to the Swedish Migration Board, 43 percent of all the job migrants come to perform unskilled work, while at the same time half a million people are unemployed in Sweden.
...
When Tobias Billström, the only politician in the government [willing to speak out], suggested that “we need to discuss volume”, i.e. the amount of immigration, he was met by massive media criticism and was not even supported by his own party leader. There is only one possible conclusion. Unless the trend described above is altered, Sweden’s status as a welfare state will soon be history.

Thatcher Death Parties Expose Left's Immorality and Totalitarianism

Among all the media coverage of Margaret Thatcher's recent death, what has impressed me most are the scenes of communists, trade unionists, "occupyers", miners and assorted leftists "celebrating" collectively in the street (like in the video above) or privately at home with a bottle of sparkling wine or a cigar.

Where did you see analogous scenes? Among Muslims, of course, after 9/11 or some genocidal attack on Israel or other similar niceties.

You never see Christians celebrating the death of anyone, or real conservatives doing that. All these are decent people.

Display of happiness for someone's decease, just because that person has diverging opinions or is a political opponent, even in case of profound disagreement, is a sign of moral depravity and totalitarian way of thinking at the same time.

People on the Left have created the myth of their inhabiting the moral high ground, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Left-wing parties are, for instance, the ones most responsible for voter fraud, in the USA, in Britain and in many other countries.

In the UK, the Labour party government subjected its country to an experiment in demographic engineering by allowing mass, unrestricted immigration for political and electioneering purposes while lying to the people about its real motives.

Leftist parties in government display a highly unethical lack of concern for the enormous injustice of leaving a huge public debt, that they almost single-handedly created, to future generations who will be born indebted.

Historically, socio-communists have in modern times been the political forces that used most violence and killed the highest number of innocent people.

Even today, here are some statistics to ponder on. These are official statistics of the US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) for the year 2011:

“According to NCTC, of the 12,533 terrorism-related deaths worldwide, 8,886 were perpetrated by “Sunni extremists,” 1,926 by “secular/political/anarchist” groups, 1,519 by “unknown” factions, 170 by a category described as “other”, and 77 by “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist” groups.”

Indeed, "the end justifies the means" could be the motto of the political Left.

And what is its end? Many people mistakenly think that socio-communists are moved by compassion for the poorest. That is hard to justify on the basis of empirical evidence, since, whether in socialist or in capitalist economies, Marxists and their allies, far from combating poverty, have always managed to create poverty.

They are not moved by compassion for the poorest (this is their spin), but envy for the richest.

Envy, being one of the basest human emotions, is also one of the commonest, which explains the great attraction that leftist ideologies have always exercised over the masses.

Christianity genuinely embraces compassion for the poorest, not socio-communism. The idea that there is something in common between them derives from the misconceived view of the charitable nature of socio-communism. Not coincidentally socio-communists have considered Christians as their enemies and massacred them in their millions.

One of the British people interviewed on the TV about their feelings about Thatcher's death was a miner's wife living in an English community affected by the former Prime Minister's decision to close down unproductive and economically unsustainable coal mines that were bleeding Britain's resources.

This woman, even while jubilating for the demise of the Baroness, was nonetheless full of bitterness and resentment. She kept repeating that Thatcher did not think of "us", and what about "us", and similar self-centred utterances.

This is one of the "me people", who would rather sacrifice a whole country's economy, as they also do with their never-ending entitlement requests that have created an ever-expanding, ruinous welfare state, than take responsibility for sorting out their lives.

One final consideration: why does hardly anybody call this display of lethal sentiments "hate", since wishing somebody dead and celebrating his/her death is the very essence of it, whereas simply disagreeing with the current orthodoxy, for example, which is the context to which "hate" is most frequently applied, is not? Because that term, like a table at a restaurant, is reserved for the politically incorrect only, and nobody else can usurp it.

A Critical Assessment of LGBT Claims

For a long time I, like many other people, thought that the campaign to stop discrimination against and even persecution of homosexuals was a worthy battle in need to be fought.

And indeed it was. But now it has become something else, something completely different, that goes well beyond the demand for recognition of fundamental rights and equality.

Many people still think of homosexuals as victims because they have been in the past, but things have changed now, and we should wake up to the new historical reality that homosexual activists now victimize those who disagree with them, using the ideological power and influence that they have acquired through the previous times of their "victim" status.

The issue of same-sex marriage, the pressure put on the Boy Scouts of America to allow homosexuals as scout masters and leaders, and the scandal of the Catholic Church's so-called "paedophile" abuse, which was in fact homosexual abuse, have made it timely, and indeed imperative and unavoidable, to confront the nature of homosexuality and whether it is just another lifestyle, innocuous to the people practicing it, harmless to children, without consequences for society, "normal" and non-pathological both physically and psychologically.

We have to take a better look at what homosexuality is, what transgender and transvestitism are, what their goals and intentions are, because now it is no longer to do with homosexuals wishing to be left alone - "Live and let live" -, but their demands, if met, are going to affect the rest of society in ways that most people are not aware of.

Let me start with a recent news item, Colorado parents of transgender 1st-grader file complaint over restroom ban, regarding the parents of a 6-year-old who have filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division because Eagleside Elementary School in Fountain banned the first-grader, who was born a boy, from using the girls' toilets.

The mother of this "transgender" child says in the video accompanying the article that they started noticing that, when the boy was about 18 months old, as soon as "she" could express "herself", she was really expressing that she was a girl.

"Transgender" is the "T" in the LGBT movement, so they are part of the great rainbow umbrella. Transgender or, to give it its medical name, Gender identity disorder, was until a few months ago on the official psychiatric diagnostic manual but the American Psychiatric Association announced last December approved changes in its official guide to classifying mental illnesses.

This follows the same pattern of the controversial and far from unanimous decision by the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, so we can expect to see more of parents like those in Colorado declaring that their boy is in fact a girl; we can expect the medical profession, media and politicians to call this normal, and everybody else who does not want to be named "transphobic" to obediently follow suit and see this as the new normal, as has been done for homosexuality.

Now, if this Colorado incident were the case of one of those cults or religious sects that sometimes appear in the American news for not having let their children go out in the outside world, or have a blood transfusion or similar, it would have been denounced all over the media as serious child abuse and the child would have been taken away from the parents and put into care.

But both journalists and social services don't care about all child abuse, only politically incorrect one. They are perfectly happy with homophile (or transphile) child abuse, being as it is on the right side of the politically correct track.

This story should also make us reflect on the various ramifications and far-reaching consequences of the requests of the LGBT movement, which not coincidentally has decided to unify its different strands.

I want to better explain this by way of an analogy.

Various deaf associations and deaf people's rights groups have a negative attitude towards cochlear implants that help hearing, because treatment implies that there is something wrong.

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) in the US has issued this position statement:

Many within the medical profession continue to view deafness essentially as a disability and an abnormality and believe that deaf and hard of hearing individuals need to be “fixed” by cochlear implants. This pathological view must be challenged and corrected by greater exposure to and interaction with well-adjusted and successful deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

The media often describe deafness in a negative light, portraying deaf and hard of hearing children and adults as handicapped and second-class citizens in need of being “fixed” with cochlear implants.

The Telegraph has this story:

Sara Kendall, profoundly deaf from birth, lives with her deaf mother and deaf boyfriend in Nottingham, and feels she has nothing to gain from an implant.

“I was offered cochlear implants when I was younger but my parents refused and I’m very happy with that because I’ve seen some cochlear users admit that they feel they don’t belong.”

What many hearing people might not realise is the strong community that exists in the silent world. In fact, it’s more than a community. Deaf people (with a capital D) see themselves more as an ethnic minority, with their own (sign) language, schools and proud history.

The National Association of the Deaf was created by deaf people to advocate for deaf rights in 1880. The Deaf don’t see deafness as a disability but a cultural identity (motto: different but not deficient). It’s a world so warm and welcoming, many wouldn’t want to become hearing, even given the choice.

The controversy over cochlear implants within the deaf community has sometimes led to strong stances:

However, there has been a notable resistance in the deaf community towards the technology of the cochlear implant (CI). The deaf community is split between those who feel that it is a medical miracle and those who feel it is a form of ethnic “genocide.”

Deaf people not wishing to acknowledge that deafness is a pathological condition, inferior to hearing capability, whereas they consider them both to be of equal value, offers an evident analogy with the normalization of homosexuality and the claims of its being just another lifestyle.

It is understandable that someone with a disorder or disability, physical or psychological, may wish to deny it. In fact, it is part of human nature, denying our weaknesses gives us a false sense of defending our pride and self-image.

But the reality is that it is when people recognize what is wrong with them that they can make progress. That is why, for example, Alcoholics Anonymous requires its members to admit that they are alcoholic.

If a deaf or homosexual person wishes to remain so, it is rightly his/her choice. And whatever these persons think of their condition is also their choice.

But should the rest of society oblige, go along with and encourage this self-deception?

One way to scientifically test the prevailing theory that homosexual behaviour is normal, natural and healthy is the following.

In science, theoretical hypotheses are controlled by logically deducing from them a proposition describing an observable event, i.e. by making a prediction, and then seeing if the event occurs as predicted, which confirms the hypothesis, or not, which refutes it.

In the 1980s, in the early days of AIDS when the major groups at risk were male homosexuals, drug addicts sharing needles and hemophiliacs being given blood transfusions, the prediction was made that AIDS would spread among heterosexuals as it had among "gays".

This 1988 New York Times article well captures the spirit of the time:

Scientists have not determined whether AIDS virus carriers from other groups, such as intravenous drug users or heterosexuals, will develop AIDS at the same pace. But a recent study of hemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus found a similar rate of disease, Dr. Moss said. ''There's no reason to think it will be any better for other groups,'' he said.

''There's no reason to think it will be any better for other groups''. Indeed, there was reason to think that, if medical researchers had embraced the correct hypothesis of the pathological nature of homosexual behaviour, considering only the latter and putting aside for a moment homosexual inclination.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic among heterosexuals that never was, logically derived from and predicted on the basis of the "benign, normal, healthy" nature of homosexual behaviour, is in itself an empirical falsification of that hypothesis.

Even today, male homosexuals are at very high risk of contracting the AIDS virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published in 2010 a study conducted in 21 American cities, showing that one in five MSM (men who have sex with men) had HIV.

We are not here talking about minor differences in the incidence of this deadly disease between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but of two completely different scales.

A coincidence, you say? No, the way HIV, the AIDS virus, spreads has a lot to do with homosexual behaviour.

Before looking into the evidence of brain, genes or hormones we need to recognise that the male body is not designed to be penetrated during sexual intercourse. The lining of the anus is much thinner than the vagina and tears very easily. The lining of the anus, compared to the lining of the vagina, is also designed for nutrients to pass through it - where a healthy vagina will stop sperm entering any part of the body except the reproductive system the anus will allow semen (and any disease it carries) into the blood stream. Also the anal sphincter muscle is designed to expel not accept objects which can lead to problems in later life...

So biologically the male and female bodies are compatible with each other not bodies of the same gender.

There are two ways HIV can be transmitted: blood to blood (as in non-sexual contagion like among intravenous drug users and in blood transfusions) and semen/cervical secretions to blood. During a normal (pardon this unfashionable term) heterosexual intercourse there is normally (again, damn!) no spilling of blood because the vagina (there is no other way to put it) is the "natural place" for sexual intercourse, whereas this is not true of the anus and anal intercourse, during which there is more tearing and bleeding.

Anal sex is the most unhealthy form of sex, not just, as it tragically is, for AIDS but also for other sexually transmitted diseases.

This is from the website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal government agency:

The Surgeon General (C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General 1982-1989) has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercouse is simply too dangerous to practice".

Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved.

Even if the condom doesn't break, anal intercourse is very risky because it can cause tissue in the rectum to tear and bleed. These tears allow disease germs to pass more easily from one partner to the other.

Psychiatric conditions are also associated with homosexuality.

I will explore this area in more detail in future posts, lest this article become a book, but here I will briefly mention some of the issues.

Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.

Pope Urban II and the First Crusade

Since there is so much misunderstanding about the Crusades, as well as the history of the relationship between Europe and Islam in general, I have decided to write historical articles for my website on Italy, Italy Travels Guide.

Italy, being right in the middle of the Mediterranean, has a long history of relations with the Islamic world.

The widespread misunderstanding mentioned above was obviously not born out of chance, but is the result of clever manipulation of public opinion. Propaganda and apology of Islam disguised as history have managed to corrupt what many people think they know about these subjects; myths have been spread as Islamophiles have tried to rewrite history in their own image.

So, these truths and facts from past ages need to be told.

My first article is on Pope Urban II, who launched the First Crusade:

Urban II, the 159th Pope of the Catholic Church, was one of the great Popes in history, and was beatified in 1881 by Pope Leo XIII.

The most famous son of Châtillon-sur-Marne, in Champagne, France, he was Pope from 1088 until his death in 1099.

We have to thank Pope Blessed Urban II for many things, including the internal reforms he made and his declarations against simony, the Medieval practice of selling church offices; but especially we have to be grateful to him for having saved Europe from subjugation to Islamic forces.

Since the time of Islam's prophet Muhammad and after his death, Muslim armies had kept conquering lands, starting from the Arabian Peninsula and then spreading to the whole Middle East and North Africa, offering the local populations, largely Christians and Jews, the triple "choice" of a) converting to Islam, b) accepting their inferior status, to be fully humiliated (become "dhimmi") and to pay a special non-Muslim tax ("Jizya") that many could not afford, or 3) being killed, as the Koran orders:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Qur'an (9:29))

"Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades".

Muslim forces were poised to conquer Europe as well. In 732 in France, moving north, Muslim armies "led by Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi proceeded to sack Aquitaine. Charles Martel mobilized his army to meet the threat. The victory at Tours marked the end of the Muslim invasions in northwestern Europe and preserved Christianity in the region."

Adolf Hitler, who was an admirer of Islam, said: "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so" (Adolf Hitler's Monologe im Führerhauptquartier (Monologue with Headquarters of the Führer). Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus, 1980).

In addition, Muslim invasions and atrocities against Christians were increasing in the decades before the First Crusade was declared in 1095.

This is half of the article, read the rest.

Journalist Dr Udo Ulfkotte: Expelling Muslims Will Help Europe Fight its Financial Crisis

Enlightening and heart-warming video interview with prominent German journalist Dr Udo Ulfkotte, (not surprisingly) former editor of one of Germany's main dailies, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (thanks to Benedict Broere for the hat tip).

In it he says that he does not think that Islam will prevail in Europe because Europeans will fight it back, but it will be bloody.

Asked if there could be a socio-economic problem behind Muslim radicalism, he reiterates the ideologically intransigent nature of Islam and answers that we in Europe have thrown so much money at Islam that this could simply not be the case.

Muslim immigrants in Germany up until 2007, Dr Ulfkotte explains, "have taken 1 billion euros more out of our social welfare system than they have paid into our system". To give a better idea of the magnitude of this figure and put it into perspective, he adds that the total debt of the German government is 1.7 billion euros. Expelling Muslims, therefore, will help Europe fight its financial crisis.

Another subject touched in the interview is the mainstream media which, largely dominated by post-'68 ideologues, have not published criticisms of the current situation out of political correctness.

Regarding his personal involvement and security problems, Ulfkotte explains that twice he had to leave his home because he had received two death threats and still has them, and he had to live under anonymity and under police protection. But he is not the only one, he says, there are many in Europe under threat of being killed by Muslims.

Asked if he is a Christian, the journalist answers that he was born into a Christian family but rejected his Christian roots when he was young. At first he was an atheist and then converted to Islam while he was in Afghanistan and the Middle East covering events there for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

That is why, he adds, he can speak from knowing Islam so well, from within.

He is now a born-again Christian, having embraced the faith out of conviction this time, and not tradition.

The final question is about the future of Europe. Ulfkotte responds that he believes the financial crisis will not go away and history teaches that, when you have economic hardships combined with ethnic tensions and a widespread disregard for the law of the country, the outcome is likely to be civil war.

His story touches me because it reminds me of mine (except the conversion to Islam bit), with his abandonment of Christianity and then return to it when he discovers that it is the best the world has to offer.

His conflictual endgame scenario may seem gloomy, even terrifying, and I hope that it will not come to that. The point is: is Islamization a better one?

We will not need a civil war if we can start addressing the problem freely and without censorship now, before it is too late, and consider different solutions which have so far been prevented even from being mentioned, let alone discussed, by the oppression and thought policing of political correctness.

Indonesian Town Government Destroys Church amid Muslim Cheers

In Indonesia, Muslims protest the construction of a church.

The Batak Protestant Church, in the Bekasi subdistrict of Jakarta on the Indonesian Island of Java, "had been meeting in a residential house every Sunday for the past 13 years. When the congregation swelled to about 600 members, Pastor Adven Leonard Nababan applied early this year for a building permit. The church obtained signatures of 60 non-Christian neighbors, as required by law."

See if we can have a law requiring 60 non-Muslim neighbours' signatures to allow a mosque to be built in Western, Christian countries. Good luck with that!

Certainly the church had met all the permit rules, however, well knowing that local governments in Indonesia can be slow to approve them, Pastor Nababan in January 2013 "ordered construction to proceed — a not uncommon practice among churches in a country where applications often languish".

But the local authority said that the church lacked the permit and "dispatched a backhoe to the Batak Protestant Church on March 21 to knock down church walls that had been under construction".

Cheers went up from the Muslim crowd as a backhoe tore down the barely finished walls of the church.

"The pile of rubble that remained was only the latest setback to Christians trying to retain a toehold in the world’s most populous Muslim country."

We Are so Used to Assaults on Christianity that We No Longer Even Recognize Them

After posting my article Islamic Republic of Great Britain under President Charles Windsor?, I've received comments here and especially on my Facebook Save the West page that show two related phenomena:

1) most people still do not understand that Christianity is the only way the West can remain itself, civilized, Islam-free and ethical

2) the reason the Western general public opinion has not been capable of recognizing or adequately countering the Islamic threat is that it has been so accustomed to the Left's propaganda, an important part of which is its anti-clericalism, anti-Christianity and assault on Christian moral values, that it has lost the ability to see even the biggest elephant in the room; in other words, erosion of and attacks on Christianity have become so normal and commonplace that they are not even noticed and recognized as such, which has led to the spread of the misconception that a religion equals another, and this in turn has made it more difficult to recognize Islam for what it is, even in the face of the most obvious and widespread direct experience through our eyes and ears.

After all, if so many people (including me until not long ago) can believe that Oscar Wilde was an innocent victim of homophobia whereas in fact he was a dirty homosexual paedophile of the worst sort, a wealthy man abusing and exploiting young working class rent-boys for sex, and that, far from being a victim of Victorian prejudice, even today he would be found guilty and be rotting in a prison cell, the high incidence of this belief in itself shows how big the collective disconnect with reality has become in the Western mind.

People have been subjected to such a brainwashing of Orwellian proportions and diabolicalness that of course, when Islam was ready and coming here to invade and submit, it found the gates of the West wide open. Nobody, or very few, were capable of seeing the obvious any more.

Now, going back to the comments to my post. I do not blame anybody, as I said it is extremely easy to be deceived by 40-50 years of uninterrupted, continuous, profound leftist indoctrination.

The comments are mainly of two types: a) they minimize the impact that even a Muslim or Islam-sympathizer Prince Charles could have, either because his reign will be short-lived or he will not have any say in how the country is run or because at least he is honest, and b) they defend the atheists' presumed entitlement to "get a say in who is to sit on the throne".

The very fact that Britain could have an Islamophile monarch is per se a sign of the enormous influence that this pseudo-religion has already attained, let alone if that dreadful scenario becomes reality.

This case also makes it even more evident than it has already been how Islam is incompatible with and a direct threat to Christianity, when you have a monarch who is supposed to have the official titles of both the "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England and the "Defensor Fidei", defensor of "the" faith - as there is only one faith that can be recognized as the foundation of any Western society, and that is Christianity - who has Islamic propensions and does not really want to defend the special role of the Christian faith.

The question about "atheist rights", which we hear more and more of, increasingly reminds me of the often-trumpeted "Muslim rights".

In advanced, Western democracies, both individuals and minorities should be protected, hence the classical theory of human rights, not to be confused with the current, leftist theory of human rights, which is something completely different, indeed opposite, and only underpins the spread and power of the state and of the welfare system, bringing Western countries to economic ruin.

The classical theory of human rights derives from the Christian doctrine of natural rights. And incidentally, this is only one of the many things that Christianity has "done for us". The problem is the widespread lack of historical knowledge of how almost everything that distinguishes the West, with its incredible civilization, from the rest is indissolubly and inherently linked to Christianity.

In the West I also include Christian populations the world over.

But the decision in a democracy is clearly taken by the majority, and most people in Britain want a Christian monarch with a Christian role: "73% said she should continue as supreme governor of the Church of England and keep the Defender of the Faith title ".

The problem is that, if we lose or dilute our Christian roots, we become nothing, the West cannot even be defined without them.

Europe geographically is just an appendix of the Eurasian continent. What distinguishes Europe is its culture, and its culture has two roots: the classical world of ancient Rome and Greece and the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Without them Europe, and by extension the West, would have just remained as civilized as the Third World is now.

The West would not have existed without Christianity and will not survive without it.

One of the reasons why Islam has made so many inroads into Western society so easily is because the people in the West do not believe in anything any more, and therefore think that there is nothing to defend, nothing worth protecting.

People who attack Christian values, which are what the West is built on and without which the West does not exist (think of the current difficulties in trying to define “Britishness” in the UK and “Europe” in the EU, difficulties that derive from the attempt to exclude Christianity from these definitions), open the door to Islamization, whether they realize it or not.

As for atheists, it is possible to be atheist and Christian, as Oriana Fallaci declared herself to be and I was until I realized that atheism is impossible to support rationally and scientifically (the alternative to the existence of God, that everything happened by chance, having such a low probability as to be mathematically impossible); so now I am agnostic and Christian. You can believe in Christian ethics and values and recognize that we owe all our civilization, including science, to Christianity, while having doubts about or without believing in God.

Burma Gravely Violates Christians' Human Rights

Buddhists are not so peaceful as the Western stereotype portrays them.

In Burma, ethnic Chin Christian children and youth are coerced to convert to Buddhism.

Burma troops kill and rape Christian civilians, burn churches and homes and destroy crosses.

"Discrimination on grounds of religion and ethnicity is both deep-rooted and institutionalized" within the army, an official said.

Human rights organizations have linked Burmese troops to rights abuses and are calling on the international community to urge Burma to protect its minorities.

From BosNewsLife:

NAYPYIDAW, BURMA (BosNewsLife)-- Rights groups urged the world Friday, March 22, to pressure Burma to end a crackdown on ethnic and religious minorities after government troops reportedly killed and raped dozens of mainly Christian civilians while burning hundreds of churches and homes.

In a statement obtained by BosNewsLife, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) and the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO) said the "international community" should "push ethnic and religious minority rights higher up the reforms agenda for Burma."

In one of the most reasons incidents, CHRO said a 13 year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a Burma Army soldier in the Paletwa area of southern Chin State. "A ceasefire agreement between the Chin National Front and the government has been in place since January last year, but Chin State remains heavily militarized with more than 54 Burma Army camps," the group said.

Elsewhere, in predominantly Christian Kachin state, government troops killed at least nine civilians and wounded more than a dozen others in mortar attacks from September 2012 to February, explained the the Kachin Women’s Association of Thailand (KWAT).

Though President Thein Sein announced a unilateral ceasefire in the region, "the Burma Army offensive in Kachin State has continued," said the Kachin Baptist Convention (KBC), representing devoted Kachin Christians.

ONGOING WAR

The ongoing war in Kachin State resulted in the destruction of over 200 villages, with 66 churches reportedly damaged and over 100,000 people internally displaced, according to KBC investigators.

CSW, CHRO, Human Rights Watch, and KWAT testified this week about the violence in Burma during a hearing of the Subcommittee on Human Rights at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium.

"We welcome the ceasefire agreement, but the international community must recognize that this is only a first step," said CHRO’s Executive Director Salai Bawi Lian Mang. "So far, there has been no discussion about troop withdrawal from Chin State. As long as there is a heavy military presence, we expect human rights abuses to continue,” the official explained at the hearing.

Speaking about Chin State, CHRO’s Program Director Salai Za Uk Ling told the Subcommittee that ethnic Chin Christian children and youth "are coerced" to convert to Buddhism at military-run ‘youth development training schools’.

"Discrimination on grounds of religion and ethnicity is both deep-rooted and institutionalized," within the army, the official said. "Current reforms in Burma should focus on dismantling the institutional structures and policies that enable continued discrimination and forced assimilation against ethnic and religious minorities.”

"CONSIDERABLE CHALLENGES"

CSW’s Senior Advocate UK/UN Matthew Jones agreed. "We see considerable challenges in Burma’s ethnic regions including in the Burmese Army’s offensives against civilians in Kachin State, the conflict and suffering of the Rohingya in Rakhine State, and continuing violations of religious freedom and other human rights [of the Chin people] in Chin State," Jones explained in remarks obtained by BosNewsLife.

"There is a need to encourage clear benchmarks and timelines for reform, and to maintain pressure on Burma to take steps to address human rights violations and engage in a meaningful nationwide peace process and political dialogue,” the official added.

The panel strongly condemned grave human rights violations in Rakhine and Kachin States, and called on the European Union (EU) to urge President Thein Sein’s government to allow immediate unrestricted humanitarian access to those areas.

Europarliamentarian László Tokés has also expressed concerns about Burma's "state policy of segregation" of Buddhist and Muslim communities in Rakhine State, and the destruction of large Christian crosses in Chin State.

It came amid reports Friday, March 21, of unrelated deadly sectarian clashes that killed at least 10 people, injured 20 others and left scores of homes destroyed.

OWNERS ARGUMENT

The riots in the town of Meikhtila, 540 kilometers (335 miles) north of Burma's capital Naypyidaw, broke out after an argument between a Buddhist couple and Muslim owners of a gold shop, witnesses said.

Relations between Buddhists and Muslims in Burma, also known as Myanmar, have simmered since last year’s sectarian violence in western Rakhine state killed 110 people and left 120,000 homeless, analysts say.

The United Nations fears such incidents could endanger democratic reforms introduced since military rule ended in 2011.

In separate meetings with government and other officials in Washington this week, a CHRO and CSW delegation also spoke about "the problem of ethno-religious based discrimination in Burma. Since 1999, the US has designated Burma a 'country of particular concern’ for what it views as the country's poor record on freedom of religion or belief.

Next week a CHRO delegation was to meet with legislators, government officials, and staff at Canada’s newly-established Office of Religious Freedom, to discuss the tensions in Burma, the rights activists said.

Islamic Republic of Great Britain under President Charles Windsor?

The UK's Queen Elizabeth II has unfortunately been ill with gastroenteritis recently.

Understandably this has started speculations, I hope premature, about what could happen in case of her death.

I like her, and I wish her a very long life.

Who will succeed the Queen is a very worrisome question. I dread to think of her son and heir to the throne Prince Charles as the King, not only because of his, shall we say, lack of grasp of reality (Oriana Fallaci, the Italian best-selling author who, with her book The Rage and the Pride (Amazon USA) , (Amazon UK) , was post 9/11 among the first to alert the West to the dangers of Islam, called him "babbeo", a Tuscan term which could be reserved for the village idiot), but even more importantly because he has repeatedly made it obvious that he is not a Christian faithful, and that he keeps an "open mind" on different religious faiths.

How can that be reconciled to his future status, if he becomes king, as the "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England?

If he is consistent he should refuse to be the next monarch.

To obviate this problem he famously said, as found on his official website: "I personally would rather see it [his future role] as Defender of Faith, not the Faith", meaning all faiths and not just Christianity.

But the vast majority of British people fortunately do not want that:

Almost 80% of people in England agree the Queen still has an important faith role, a BBC poll suggests.

In a poll by Comres to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, 79% of respondents said the monarch's religious role remained relevant.

Meanwhile, 73% said she should continue as supreme governor of the Church of England and keep the Defender of the Faith title first given to Henry VIII.

Charles' own website shows that his connections to Islam are very strong:

The Prince has given many speeches on the need for greater understanding between different religions. In March 2006, His Royal Highness addressed over 800 Islamic scholars at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, and called for greater dialogue between the three Abrahamic faiths: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The Prince was awarded an honorary doctorate from the university for his work to encourage inter-faith dialogue and was the first Western man to receive this honour.

During the same overseas tour with The Duchess of Cornwall, His Royal Highness repeated his call at Saudi Arabia’s most senior Islamic University, the Imam Muhammad bin Saud University in Riyadh, the first Christian to speak there.

His Royal Highness also set up The Prince’s School for Traditional Arts in Shoreditch, London, to bring a wider appreciation of the arts and craft skills which have deep roots in all the major faith traditions.

The school teaches Islamic architecture, icon painting, Islimi and Arabesque craft, and stained glass skills to pupils of all religions and backgrounds. The school has developed outreach and education programmes for young people and is also working with a number of governments in Arab and Asian countries to build links with institutions.

And it doesn't end there. The Boston Globe wrote in November 2005 (via Jihad Watch):

The Prince of Wales was at the White House last week, hoping, the Daily Telegraph reported, ''to convince President Bush of the merits of Islam . . . because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since Sept. 11, 2001." This is a drum Prince Charles has been beating for years. In 1993, for example, he scolded those in the West who peddled ''unthinking prejudices" about Muslim culture -- for example, ''that sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric, and unjust." Two months after 9/11, he was lambasting the American attitude toward Islam as ''too confrontational."

Islam scholar and political activist Robert Spencer also has this in Jihad Watch:

Bonnie Prince Charlie: East has what the West lacks.

The East, that is, Islam, or at least Sufi mysticism. Attending a whirling dervish ceremony in Turkey, Charles waxed enthusiastic:

When they had finished the Prince gave a speech on Rumi’s appeal in the 21st century. “Whatever it is, it seems to me that Western life has become deconstructed and partial.” The East, on the other hand, had given us “parables of the soul”.

Islam scholar Daniel Pipes offers a long catalogue of reasons that make him wonder whether Prince Charles is a convert to Islam.

I can't imagine many things worse for a future (or present, for that matter) British monarch to utter than what Prince Charles said to an audience of scholars for the 25th anniversary of the University of Oxford's Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, "which attempts to encourage a better understanding of the culture and civilisation [sic] of the religion", organization of which he is patron: "Follow the Islamic way to save the world".

If you look at the photos of students accompanying the article and, even more, if you read the comments to it, you'll notice that that speech didn't go down very well.

Some little pearls representative of the many more disparaging comments: "Must be the medication he's on for his chest Infection.", "And this guy will be your future king,be afraid very afraid.", "'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Does that include honour killings and stonings and public executions for gays Charlie?", "When Charles is crowned King, he will have to swear to be the Defender of the Faith - and that is the Christian faith, not Islam.", "to come out with this is utter insanity", "Just shows you how out to lunch he is!!!", "Go back and talk to the trees!", "It really amazes me that the citizens of this country put up with the thought of this man being the next King of England.", "Now tell me he's not crazy!", "Who are the fools who think he is worth a penny of the taxpayer's money?", "I also find it disturbing that you, as Head of the Church in a Christian country, would single out another religion in the way that you have. Really Sir - your comments are 'unhelpful' at best.", "'we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us. Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.' Yes Charles but then can you explain why it is then that some followers of Islam spend most of their time trying to obliterate some of this finely balanced web? Get a grip Sir, you are paid for out of British Taxpayers Money and you represent people such as those killed and maimed in the July bombings. If you feel such a fan of Islam then why not go visit the relatives of those people and try explaining to them the fine balance that you talk about.", "I cannot believe that a future king and defender of the faith, christainity , church of england , could come out with such garbage. I sincerly hope he does NOT become our king.", "Prince Charles a 'practising Christian' ???!!! Says who?", "I pray that this man will NEVER sit on the throne of the United Kingdom!", "And this from the man who may become the head of the Church of England? God help us all.", "If he wasn't so stupid he'd be a joke.", "Who would not be a Republican after reading this?", "He shames our country.", "Could the potential head of a country possibly be more out of touch with his people?", "Where does he get the idea that Islamic spiritual principles protect the environment? We have just returned from a holiday in Egypt (Cairo and Alexandria) the atmospheric pollution and discarded refuse was unbelievable.", "I think that Islam needs to follow the world actually..With people like this bloke at the helm I grieve for this Christian Nation.", "Thank God there's a chance the succession to the throne will skip a generation.", "How differently things might have turned out if this practising Christian had remembered the commandment - Thou shalt not commit adultery. Christian values made Britain great. It is very sad how those values have been eroded over the years.", "We are the plebs who keep him and his mistress in the luxury they're acustomed to!! Time to say NO - think of the damage he's going to do, IF he ever becomes King.", "The prince apparently lives in some kind of parallel universe. As King, he will be "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England, and here is on spouting on and on about Islamic values! Championing an Islamist cause is a strange role indeed for this man, but perhaps not surprising considering how weird and unsuccessful his life has been to date. He needs a reality check imho.", "He is an outright embarrassment. Why doesn't he just go ahead and convert to Islam already instead of being the royal Dhimmi that he is".

And this comment from an Aussie nicely sums up my own feelings: "I do hope the Queen sticks around for another 30 or so years", or more.

I wonder, if there was a public vote, say a referendum on his accession to the throne, whether Prince Charles would be the choice of the people. I very much doubt it.

Immigrants Commit Ten Times More Rapes than Italians

Ah, the joys of mass immigration and multiculturalism! From La Repubblica, latest news from Rome:

Rome police have intensified their controls to stop pickpocketing in the areas surrounding the Vatican and the historic centre, that in the last several days have been frequented by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims.

The carabinieri in a few hours arrested 14 pickpockets involved in stealing from the pockets and backpacks of tourists who have arrived in the capital from all over the world.

The plainclothes police are still used on buses, metro trains, near crowded squares and monuments, to ensure the safety of visitors.

The thieves, aged between 15 and 46 years, are all foreigners, mostly nomads.

All the stolen goods, cameras, smart phones, wallets containing cash and credit cards, were returned to the victims. Those arrested, charged with aggravated theft, will be tried straight away.

Only a month ago a 46-year-old Chinese man was caught thanks to a CCTV camera and arrested for stealing the faithful's offerings from a church's collection boxes near Verona on at least three separate occasions.

Official statistics released in 2009 by the Italian Interior Ministry show that 60 percent of all rapes in Italy are committed by immigrants, who therefore, being only 6-7 percent of the country's population, commit rape 10 times more than Italians.

Among immigrant groups, the nationalities committing most rapes are, in order, Romanians, Moroccans, Albanians.

In Italy immigrants commit such a disproportionate number of crimes, ranging from petty thieving to assault, rape and murder, that an Italian website entirely devoted to this issue has been created, Tutti i Crimini degli Immigrati (All the Immigrants' Crimes). Its tagline is "The others talk about integration, we are just showing it to you".

The site is a catalogue of daily horrors, from filthy Chinese restaurants that seriously jeopardize the health of their customers to a drunk Moroccan, unemployed and without fixed abode, who Thursday evening smashed the window of a crowded Milanese restaurant shouting: "I want to eat for free".

One crime that I found particularly cowardly, cruel and repulsive is that reported by the Italian news agency ANSA about the arrest yesterday of 75 South American immigrants who used large-size breeds of dogs, like St. Bernard, Great Dane, Dog de ​​Bordeaux, Neapolitan Mastiff and Labrador, as drug carriers.

The animals were subjected to surgery and their entrails were filled with pure cocaine to be exported. The drug was wrapped in layers of different substances impenetrable to X-rays. Upon arrival at the destination the dogs were killed and cut up to retrieve the cocaine.

The estimate is that 50 dogs have been used this way, and only one was saved.

The so-called pandillas, organized violent gangs of Latinos who are involved not only in common crimes but also in international drug trafficking in northern Italy, have in recent years become an increasingly worrying phenomenon in Italy.

This new police investigation has for the first time demonstrated the existence of a link between the pandillas and the emissaries of the South American cartels with whom the pandillas were in direct contact to procure large quantities of cocaine.

Why we leave our borders open to this scum is beyond comprehension.

Video of Pro-Israel Activists Attacked

Video of Pro-Israel activists verbally and physically attacked for peaceful counter-protest at Anti-Israel Protest in Oakland, California.

Football Authorities Are the New Self-Appointed Thought Police

The 20-year-old Greek football player Giorgos Katidis, AEK Athens midfielder, has been banned for life from all national teams by Greece's Football Association after he stretched his arm and gave what looked like a Nazi salute to supporters in celebrating his winning goal during a match at the Athens Olympic Stadium.

Giorgos Katidis has been verbally attacked by political parties and fans as well, also in view of the fact that Sunday is the 70th anniversary of Greek Jews' deportations to Nazi concentration camps during World War II.

The real fascists here are those who banned him. The Greek FA said in a statement: "The player's action to salute to spectators in a Nazi manner is a severe provocation, insults all the victims of Nazi bestiality and injures the deeply pacifist and human character of the game".

Incredibly severe words and terribly harsh punishment for a 20-year-old who denied he gave a Nazi salute and said he would not have made the gesture if he had known what it meant, adding that he was only pointing at his team mate Michalis Pavlis in the stands to dedicate the goal to him, who is fighting against health problems.

The coach of Katidis' team AEK Athens, Ewald Lienen, supported him, saying that he is a non-political young kid, who did not know what he was doing and cried in the dressing room after seeing the reaction.

Have the football authorities, in Greece as in Britain and all over Europe, appointed themselves as guardians of political correctness? Does football now have to police thought and speech, in an Orwellian fashion?

And, crucially, would Giorgos Katidis have been banned for life, if he had given the communist clenched fist salute?

Globally, communist regimes killed 94 million people, as opposed to the 11 million killed by Nazism.

The double standard is cowardly and revolting.

Media Try to Report Lars Hedegaard’s New Address after His Attempted Assassination

Indescribable.

Two newspaper reporters, following a van moving Danish anti-Islam activist Lars Hedegaard’s possessions to a new address following his attempted assassination on his own doorstep, tried to report the route taken by the van until the police stopped them:

Cynical as I am about the media’s stance toward critics of Islam, even I was taken aback by an article that was posted Thursday evening on the website of the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet, and that I assume appeared in Friday’s print edition.

Headlined “Lars Hedegaard moves” and written by Bo Poulsen, the article began by informing readers that on the previous day the possessions of the Islam critic, who survived an assassination attempt last month at his apartment in the Copenhagen suburb of Frederiksberg, had been loaded into a moving van and driven off. The article is accompanied by a picture of the moving van outside Hedegaard’s former residence.

Here’s the kicker. Two Ekstra Bladet staffers, presumably Poulsen and a photographer, were in a car watching the moving men load the van, after which they followed it. And Poulson – here it is – actually describes the route taken by the van. If you plot the course of the van on Google Maps, to be sure, it looks rather meandering, as if the moving men were aware of the two reporters on their tail and were trying to shake them off.

Fortunately, the police intervened. Perhaps the moving men alerted them to the problem. In any event, a motorcycle cop pulled over the reporters’ car. Poulsen is snide about it, describing the intervention sarcastically as belejligt – meaning “timely” or “convenient.” Poulsen is obviously indignant about the injustice of it all. “Without any justification, the driver was asked to show his driver’s license, even as they could see the moving van disappear over the horizon. After a few minutes the officer returned and said that everything was in order and that they could drive on.”

The reporters did so – but the cop followed close behind. After a short while he pulled them over a second time and “said in a not particularly convincing manner that he would like to see the driver’s license again, because ‘We can see that it’s been used in some connection or other, so we should double-check it.’” Another five minutes or so went by. Then the cop came back with the license, pronounced again that everything was in order, and told the reporters that they were free to continue on their way.

“The two stops,” Poulsen writes with what certainly reads like righteous indignation, “had now detained Ekstra Bladet‘s reporters for over ten minutes, and the distinctively green moving van was now far over the hills.”

Breathtaking.

It’s plain as day that Poulsen and his colleague were fully prepared to follow that van all the way to its destination, take a picture, and print the address – which would, of course, have been exceedingly helpful to anyone planning to make a second attempt on Hedegaard’s life, and would utterly have defeated the entire purpose of his move.

The very idea of following that van with the intention of revealing Hedegaard’s new address is beyond vile. It is a profoundly mischievous and potentially deadly act. Yet Poulsen seems incapable of imagining that he is doing anything remotely inappropriate. The tone of his article is that of a citizen – and member of the fourth estate – who has been deeply wronged by the law-enforcement establishment, in league with, and doing the bidding of, a racist, Islamophobic Enemy of the People. The clear implication of Poulsen’s article is that the police officer’s conduct was thoroughly unacceptable – that he had far exceeded his legitimate duties – and that any reasonable newspaper reader will feel the same way.

I was, as I say, thrown by Poulsen’s article. I shouldn’t have been. The unblushing zeal with which Norwegian journalists, in the wake of the Breivik atrocities, sought to link honest critics of Islam with a mass murderer provided a definitive demonstration of just how hostile many members of their profession are toward those of us who strive to tell the not-so-pacific truth about the Religion of Peace. Given what happened post-Breivik, it shouldn’t be surprising that a member of the mainstream media, whether in Norway or Denmark or anywhere else in Europe or North America, would be ready, willing, and eager to report in detail the movements of a van bearing the household goods of a septuagenarian fleeing his home because jihadists are out to murder him. Out to murder him, note well, because he – unlike the cowardly so-called journalists trailing the van – has the courage to speak the truth.

Poulson’s article closes with a simple statement: “Lars Hedegaard did not wish to speak to Ekstra Bladet.dk about his change of address.” No kidding! All I can say is, good for the Danish police, and shame on Poulsen and Ekstra Bladet.

The Culture War Needs to Be Fought

Because cultural change precedes political change, and the Left is currently winning on both fronts, we cannot afford to surrender to it on the culture wars, which include the homosexualist agenda of gay marriage and adoption.

It is true that the anti-Islam coalition is broader than the one against cultural Marxism, and includes homosexualists in it, but the latter are unreliable allies. They are against Islam not because they understand or care about the threat Islam represents to the West, but simply because they are only concerned about their own immediate interest, which is the normalization of homosexuality.

For that reason, because they do not think of the far-reaching consequences of the Islamization of the West, homosexualists are anti-Christianity as well as anti-Islam.

By demanding marriage and adoption for gays, homosexual activists know that they can reach and influence the new generations into their way of thinking.

The number one leader of the UK LGBT movement Peter Tatchell (who incidentally advocates lowering the age of consent, repeatedly defended man-boy sex, supported relaxation of laws against pornography "arguing that porn can have some social benefits, and he has criticised what he calls the body-shame phobia against nudism, suggesting that nudity may be natural and healthy for society") publicly says that, without repression of homosexuality and what he calls "heterosexual proselytising", everyone or nearly everyone in society would be bisexual:

Q: What's the difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex? A: A few inches of flesh...

If homosexual desire is this widespread in a homophobic society, imagine how much more common it would be in a gay-positive culture. With the cultural taboos removed, nearly everyone would savour its delights.

That's where they want all of us to get to.

I wonder how many other "delights" Tatchell has in store for us, once the new situation of the "cultural taboos removed" will give him free rein to imagine and publicly profess support for more of them.

I suspect that many people who support or at least do not oppose same-sex marriage are not aware of the long-term goals of the LGBT movement, and of how its goals are incompatible with those of the majority of the people.

Cultural Change Comes Before Political Change

Assault on the Culture from DHFC on Vimeo.


The Left is winning politically because it has won culturally.

The brilliant Antonio Gramsci, who co-founded the Italian Communist Party in 1921, developed his theory of hegemony: before there could be any radical change or revolution, there had to be first a total change in and control of the culture, so that the new, emerging dominant ideas would lead to the poltical revolution.

The Left has put that into practice, getting control of the media, universities, film industry (particularly Hollywood), education and entertainment sectors and in so doing giving rise to new generations with different ideas.

The real conservatives now must take back the culture or create a parallel one to reach the future generations.

Winning the Culture War —- And the Next Generation, from FrontPage Magazine:

Editor’s note: Below is the video of the panel discussion “Assault on the Culture,” featured at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2013 West Coast Retreat. The event was held February 22nd-24th at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California. A transcript of the discussion follows.

Mark Tapson: As your mutual friend, the late great Andrew Breitbart, was fond of pointing out, politics flows downstream from culture. And the results of the last election confirm that. Conservatives lost last November in the political arena because for decades the radical Left has laid the groundwork for it in the cultural arena.

There’s no way the radical and insubstantial Barack Obama would ever have been taken seriously as a presidential candidate, much less be elected to two terms in the White House, if the Left had not previously and successfully infiltrated the key cultural arenas — education, the news media and entertainment — and spent decades indoctrinating generations. Our task now is to retake the culture or create a parallel one, deprogram that indoctrination, and seduce subsequent generations to a renewed vision of American exceptionalism.

So, gentlemen, what are the symptoms of the assault on the culture? And what is the cure?

We’ll begin with Ron.

Ron Radosh: As the moderator mentioned — I started out, as David did, as a young Marxist. And let me take a page from Marx. Just [as] people have learned that the Left organizes around the Alinsky playbook, here’s another leftist we can learn something from — the brilliant Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who developed a theory of hegemony. He argued that before there could be any radical change or revolution, which is what he desired, there had to be first a total change in and control of the culture, so that the dominant ideas that would emerge would be those that would lead to the potential for revolutionary action.

He was really onto something. He realized correctly that you had to wage what he called, in his Marxist terminology, a war of position to demand and create hegemonic control of the culture, so that the majority of people think alike and then would be ripe for and become vehicles for creating a revolution.

Well, the problem is, in this country — to make it very simple — that even if we win elections — and we are winning it in state and local level, but not in the national level — even if we win elections, the culture is at present controlled by the political Left. Have no doubts about that.

The first thing — look at the polls and the studies that have been done in the past year. I meant to bring it with me, but I can just mention it without reading through what this professor found out, from a very finely tuned study. He studied the majority of liberal arts universities and colleges in the United States. And he found out that almost 80, 90 percent of the faculty define themselves as liberal or radical and on the left. And you can be sure that in the humanities — history, philosophy, political theory — the professors there are almost entirely on the left.

Undoubtedly you’ve all seen the recent studies of how many faculty members in the major Ivy universities gave to the Romney campaign. They looked at Harvard and Princeton and Yale. And I think at Harvard, everybody gave — 98, 99 percent gave to Obama. And there were, I think, two faculty members — two people employed by Harvard — who gave to Romney; one was a janitor.

(Laughter)

So, this is the reality we’re facing.

Now, I was supposed to talk — I’ve been on a one-man campaign. And instead of giving you everything I said — because there’s just no time — all you have to do is blog, put it on Google — Ron Radosh on Oliver Stone. And you will have maybe 10 recent articles come up. And I’ve been on a one-man campaign against what I think is a major turning point in the culture. Starting a few months ago, on the Showtime Network owned by CBS, Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick have put together a 10-part documentary series that is now at an end, but you can still watch it on-demand. And that is now going to be shown throughout our high schools and colleges — Oliver Stone’s “Untold History of the United States.”

If you have seen any of it — and I don’t know how many of you want to be masochists and watch it — it is horrendous. It is — and I am not exaggerating — the exact KGB Soviet propaganda history of the United States as it was written by the KGB in the 1950s and ’60s.

Indeed, when I was growing up, the first book that said the United States was the evil power in the world and responsible for the then-ongoing Cold War was a little-known book by a Communist — who was one of the Communist Party members of the United States who infiltrated the OSS during the war and was a top officer in the OSS — a man named Carl Marzani, who was a secret member of the Communist Party and later, we found out, paid by the KGB, and actually a paid agent of theirs — he published a book subsidized by the KGB — this is how he got the money to publish independently — called “We Can Be Friends.”

And that book outlined the theory that the United States — there could’ve been peace with the Soviet Union if the United States had done what Stalin wants. Because Stalin was a good guy. Truman, who then President, was a fascist, which –

(Laughter)

You have to remember, the Communists in America called Harry Truman a fascist. Not even a conservative Republican, but a fascist — creating a fascist America. And he outlined the theory in this book.

And, lo and behold — I watched Oliver Stone’s first five episodes; I couldn’t go beyond that. I know what’s in them; I read the [synopsis] in David Horowitz’s FrontPage. I’m not going to torture myself that much. But I watched the first five. It was exactly the argument, with the same quotations and the same facts, in the same order, as this 1952 book by this Communist KGB agent.

And they are — you have to realize this is a turning point. If something like this had been produced and tried to be shown when John F. Kennedy was President, or in the years after Kennedy — even, I think, when Bill Clinton was President — first they would not have been able to get it aired in a major network. It would’ve been attacked all over as outright distortions of history, as Communist propaganda, as an embarrassment.

What has happened? Just the reverse. They have been touring — up to the present, and still going on every weekend — college after college in the United States, where they speak to thousands of students, show them one episode, and then talk and answer questions. They are getting phenomenal attention. Both of them have been on every major TV and radio talk show you can think of, including, I’m sorry to say, Mike Huckabee, who sang their praises and thanked them for doing such a wonderful job in educating our students in the history of the United States. Either Mike Huckabee is dumb or he just got something handed to him by his staff and didn’t really watch it.

So this is what we’re against. Let me just give you one brief example, because I only have two minutes left. The hero of the Stone TV series is the late Vice President — before that Secretary of Commerce — Vice President and then Secretary of Commerce, who Truman fired for being an appeaser of the Soviets, Henry A. Wallace. The theory of their TV show is that had Henry A. Wallace successfully become President, there would’ve been no Cold War, we would’ve had peace with Russia, we would’ve had total income redistribution, we would have an equitable, fair, social democratic America. And everything would’ve been roses. As it was, this was failed because of the political bosses in the rightwing corporations who fought Wallace and stymied him.

Well, who was Henry Wallace? He was a naïve, classic dupe. And just to give you the one incident that says it all — when he was Secretary of Commerce, still in the President’s cabinet, he had a secret meeting with the head of the KGB, the KGB station chief in Washington, DC. And he went to see Anatoly Gorsky. And he said to him — you know, we’re having an internal battle in the administration. Truman and all these advisors around him want to get tough with the Russians, they want to stand up to Stalin. Can you help me out and give us support and ammunition, so we can defeat these anti-Soviet forces?

And he goes to the KGB station chief to ask for help in settling an internal administration dispute, while he’s in the President’s cabinet. The man, in other words, was either a fool or a traitor, or just a total idiot. Or maybe all three.

And this is the man that students and people in America are being told, week by week, is the unsung hero who should’ve been the President of the United States instead of all the reactionaries who followed him.

We have a fight to wage. It’s a fight to change the culture, to change the way the truth about our past is taught. It’s something that has to be carried out. It is extremely important. And if not, you’re going to see a whole new generation mis-educated, as Stone and Kuznick are doing now, with the most vile, old kind of Communist propaganda. And that will be what they think of the United States. They will come out learning the evil power in the world is the United States. And just as we should’ve appeased the Soviets then, we have to now reach out and honor the wishes of the Islamists who have something to say.

I learned yesterday, the great Iranian-American filmmaker who did — what’s the name of the movie about the woman who was stoned? Stoning of Soraya — he told me yesterday that he spoke to Stone and Kuznick, and they saw his movie. And Stone and Kuznick said to him, to Cyrus — you know, your film is very dangerous, because it would have the effect of turning the American people against radical Islam.

(Laughter)

And he then said to them — what, you’re not against the stoning of women? He said — well, that’s their culture, and who are we to oppose it?

Now, that’s the people we’re dealing with. If we don’t fight this, and develop films like Cyrus’s movie — why can’t we develop a counter-series about the history of the United States to sell to HBO or Showtime that tells that truth about our past, rather than the kind of stuff they’re showing now?

And Howard Zinn was on Fox with his special before he died. Now we have Stone. This could not have happened years ago. These guys would never have got contracts for major television time. And this is a crisis that this has been received well. Look at the rave review it got in the Washington Post. This says something about our culture. It’s a dangerous time, and we have to oppose it.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Keep reading, it's a very long article.