Green Britain: Energy Blackouts Imminent

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


More articles on the subject:

Why UK Electricity Prices Are so High

Disadvantages and Advantages of Wind Turbines

China Development and Climate Change

Is Ought


Photo courtesy of BritainGallery.com

Repulsion Is the Natural Feeling towards Homosexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read previous posts on the condition of homosexuality:

A Critical Assessment of LGBT Claims

Is Homosexuality as Harmless and Healthy as Political Correctness Dictates?

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



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

Help Immigrants to Lampedusa Back to Their Countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lampedusa, Italy. Part I: What Happened in 2011

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

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


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

The Battle of the Burqa

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


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

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

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

This is how Al-Madinah describes itself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Video Image of Britain's Colonisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was violence and invasion, and it was bloody.

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

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

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

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

Hijra, Immigration Jihad of Taking over Other Cultures and Countries

This is the third and final part of a 3-part article by our new guest writer, Stephen St. George, a Catholic born in Iraq who now lives in the United States. The first part, in which he describes his early experiences in Iraq, is here: Let’s Throw Pebbles in the Ocean!. The second part is here: How to Answer Muslim and Liberal Untruths .

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

Around the world, we have situations and events that as a whole resemble an “ocean” of crooked laws, injustices, oppression, greed, lies, killings, and all sorts of evils that man is capable of perpetrating on his fellow men. Some of these events are violent and shocking attacks on innocent people, like the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Beslan school hostage crisis, the Boston Marathon bombing, Kenya’s Westgate Mall terror attack, and other terrorist attacks in London, Spain, India, etc. Yet, other attacks come slowly and methodically, like creeping shariah, imposition of the will of minority immigrants over the will and way of life of the host country, footbaths, halal meat, burning the flag of the host country, protesting in the streets and displaying signs like “Europe, Your 9/11 is Coming”, and “Behead Those Who Insult islam”!!

Westerners, born and raised in a democratic society, enjoy freedom of speech, and are brought up to respect and tolerate other people’s views, opinions and religions. Muslims, on the other hand, live by teachings given to them in their Quran and reinforced by their upbringing. They are taught to hate anyone who does not believe in their god, period! Calling everyone else (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on) infidels, kafirs, non-believers, pigs, apes, and unclean.

While Muslims are accusing everyone else of being unclean, immoral, or just being your basic unbeliever, they are busy praying five times a day, in public, for all to see! They demand footbaths in universities and airports. How does washing one’s feet before prayer cleanse the heart, or make one more worthy of praying to his or her god? I would rather have dirty feet, but pray to God to help me love my neighbor and not kill him if he doesn’t believe what I believe!

If you think that I am a racist, or a bigot, or that the things I mentioned above are not dangerous to Western society, then do all of us and yourself a favor, and read about what happened to the Hindus in India, the Zoroastrians in pre-Iran Persia, the Armenian Christians, and the Christians and Jews in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Sudan, etc.

Liberals tell the rest of us that we are intolerant and hateful when we comment on the creeping danger that Islam poses, a danger that is by no means fabricated by us “racists and bigots”, but even broadcast by Muslims and their clerics themselves for the whole world to hear and read in sermons, lectures, writings and street protests! Liberals push the notion that most Muslims are moderate and pose no danger at all to our Western way of life and our belief system. To the contrary, it is a well-established fact that when Muslims are a small minority in a foreign country, they are “peaceful and moderate”. Once their numbers increase, then their demands go up, their voices get louder, and the host country is all of a sudden embroiled in more protests, increased numbers of crimes like rape and murder, and the occasional riots, car burnings and vandalism! Remember what happened in France in 2005? Look it up!

Most people are busy being good citizens, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, and overall productive members of society. They are caught up in the struggles of earning money to raise a family, save for retirement, a little vacation now and then, maybe even save for some extra luxuries, or to start a small business.

That’s why most Westerners are not out in the streets protesting or demanding things. They not only work for a living, but also try to build a future for themselves and their children. Another thing they do is vote! They vote for politicians who they hope would represent them and act on their behalf to ensure basic conditions like:

1. Safety, both from national threats and local crime.
2. Freedom. To be left alone to live, worship, and be happy, provided they don’t encroach on the freedoms of others.

Unfortunately, many politicians in the West (both left and right, with the exception of very few), would not stand a chance to be voted into office by law-abiding, hard-working, God-fearing citizens, so what do they do in order to ensure a cushy job and a secure retirement for themselves? They divide society into groups and promise them special handouts if they help elect them. Therefore, it is in the politicians’ best interest (not the country’s) to cultivate groups of voting blocs made up of people who are dependent on government handouts. Such handouts can only come from the ever-rising taxes on hard-working citizens, knowing full well that these citizens would not leave their daily jobs and take to the streets in protest! But, after the politicians ran out of voting blocs to cultivate large enough majorities, they started encouraging whole-sale, open-door immigration from all parts of the world. When people come to the West not able to speak the native language of the host country, they naturally find it difficult to blend in, find jobs, and become productive members of society! Never fear, for here come the politicians with their promises of welfare, free housing, food stamps, free tuition, and even social-security benefits (in the US) for people who had not put a penny into the system.

What I’ve outlined above are old tactics (for over 100 years) used by politicians, especially liberals, who couldn’t win elections fair and square and on merit! The only difference, and the bigger danger in the present, is that Muslims migrating to the West not only benefit financially as outlined above, but find out very quickly that they can use our democracy, freedom of speech, and tolerance of other religions against us in order to fulfill their Quran’s Hijra (immigration) jihad of slowly taking over other cultures. (Again, don’t just take my word for this, do some research on the violence of Islam from its inception. This is not a new problem!)  As their numbers increase, and more importantly because they refuse to assimilate into our culture and accept our laws, Muslims drive many of the host-country’s citizens out of a town and form their own separatist enclaves that even the police dare not enter!

Keep in mind that tolerance of other religions is almost non-existent in many countries in the Middle East. So while Europe and the USA are brimming with more and more mosques, there isn’t a single Christian Church in Saudi Arabia and those that exist in Egypt, Syria, or Iraq, to name a few countries, are constantly being attacked, vandalized, or burned to the ground. When was the last time you heard or read of Christians attacking a mosque, climbing on its walls and destroying religious relics? If that ever happened, the whole Christian community would be torched and many killed. You don’t think that would happen? Well it happened in Pakistan after a Christian was accused of blasphemy against Islam! Look it up, it happened around March 9th, 2013.

I am not advocating hatred or intolerance of anyone who genuinely comes to our Western countries seeking freedom from brutal regimes, depressed economies (although they have all the money in the world from oil, it seems that only the ruling class gets to enjoy those riches), and brutality of rape, murder, stoning, “honor” killings, etc., etc. All I ask is that when you come here, you don’t turn around and spit in our faces and tell us that we are infidels, and that you want to overturn our democratic system to replace it by the very system (shariah or Islamic law) that is brutalizing so many back in your country!!

May God bless and guide all of us to His truth!


Photo Muslim Protesting by ChrisPearce (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

How to Answer Muslim and Liberal Untruths

This is the second part of a 3-part article by our new guest writer, Stephen St. George, a Catholic born in Iraq who now lives in the United States. The first part, in which he describes his early experiences in Iraq, is here: Let’s Throw Pebbles in the Ocean!

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

I’ve heard and seen many attacks directed at anyone who speaks the truth about the atrocities that Muslims are perpetrating upon innocent people all around the world. These are some of the attacks, untruths, insults and propaganda spewed by Muslims or their liberal defenders, and my answers to them.

Accusation: “If you speak against Islam, you are a racist and a bigot!”
Answer: This is a common liberal (and Muslim) strategy. Calling someone a name is an attempt to derail the debate and change the subject. Anyone who is trying to discuss the facts of violence, terrorism, beheadings, rape, etc., is taken off topic and put on the defensive. Besides, as you may have already heard, Islam is not a race, so I am not a racist for speaking against the violence carried out around the world in the name of Islam! As a matter of fact, if Muslims did not, with their own words and actions, threaten my way of life or my family’s safety, I would be the first to welcome them in my neighborhood and country.

Argument: “The West and the US caused or is constantly causing Islamic terrorism because we bomb them and try to steal their oil!”
Answer: The West and the United States did not exist 1400 years ago, yet Islam was invading many of the Arab countries, murdering and converting people to Islam under threat of death! Then they turned around, killed thousands of Christans who were visiting the Holy Land, and when warriors went to the Middle East to defend the Christians, we are constantly told that the defenders were the aggressors, but the first offenders were the victims! What made Muslims attack, slaughter, enslave, and take over villages, cities, etc. before they were ever “mistreated” by the “evil” West? This argument does not hold any water, the Muslims and their liberal defenders know it, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Then again, I am asking people who have no shame to be ashamed of themselves!!

Now, regarding the “stealing-of-the-oil” argument. If we were stealing oil, why are we paying close to $4, $5, or even higher in Europe? Shouldn’t we be paying something like 50¢ if that were true?

Argument: “Muslims and especially Palestinians act out because they are poor and have no hope in life, Israel is oppressing them and constantly destroying their homes and killing their children.”
Answer: Many Christians live in abject poverty all around the Middle East, but their faith in God and His mercy prevents them from acting violently against Muslims. Although Christians are being oppressed by Islam, how many news reports of Christian terrorism have you read coming out of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, etc.? Close to . . . none?

What about Israel bombing Palestinian villages? How would you like it if your neighborhood was constantly bombed day-in and day-out, to the tune of 2,256 rockets from January through November 2012? Since when is self-defense more criminal than the original attack or attacks?

And don’t even get me started on the Jewish and Christian origins in the area of “Palestine” since the Old Testament and through the New Testament! Why do you think Mohammed’s Quran demonizes Jews and Christians? It is so our holy books are struck down and true history of God’s people is erased and replaced by Mohammedanism!!

Argument: This argument is even thrown around by Westerners who are clueless, uninformed mental midgets, and by atheists who hate all religions carte blanche and so it goes something like: “All religions, including Christianity, are or were violent!”
Answer: Just open your eyes and read! Have an open mind and visit The Religion of Peace (just one of the hundreds of websites around the world writing about the problem of Islam). Spend some time (more than 5 minutes) to read about all the attacks carried out by Muslims JUST since 9/11/2001. Go into the archives, scroll up and down and read the articles!! If you are kept blind by the liberal media outlets that you constantly rely on for your news, do yourself, your kids, family, and your country a favor and read, really read some of these articles!! Do more research and let us know how the terrorism carried out by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, and Christians compares to Islamic terrorism. I’ll even give you that, if one or two rogue soldiers have killed innocent Muslims, I consider that evil and an act or acts that were not sanctioned by their military leaders, whereas I have read of so many Islamic clerics condoning mass murders of non-Muslims - as in the latest mall and school massacres in Kenya. Read about the reports, watch the videos of Muslim clerics inciting violence against all non-Muslims!!

Be honest with at least yourself and your conscience, so if you are uninformed about the violent origins of Islam or what Islam has done in the West in the Middle Ages, how Muslims slaughtered the Armenians, Spaniards, Hindus, Zoroastrians in pre-Iran Persia, and how they are slaughtering the Christians in Egypt, the rest of Africa, and Syria today, then please shut the hell up, and don’t put our lives in danger due to your ignorance!!

I do pray that Muslims save their souls by turning to the true God and Jesus Christ His son who came to Earth to teach us how to live in peace and defeat sin. Jesus did not tell us to kill anyone who did not believe in Him! He told us that we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves!

This is my pebble in the water, let me see how far you can throw yours, spread the word and let’s make the truth known!

What would I like you to do to save our civilization, our freedom, our tolerant way of life?

1. Get informed and stay informed. Do not depend on the liberal (treasonous) media that pushes the liberal and socialist agenda.
2. Inform as many friends and family members as possible by kindly pointing them to the truth.
3. Vote! The number-one reason we have an Obama in the White House, and socialists in all branches of government both in the US and Europe, is because good people either don’t bother to vote or are uninformed about how to vote for the right people who would preserve our democracies. I attribute much of this to their being misled by the liberal, socialist media!


The third part of the article coming soon.


Photo by "it was 3 a.m." (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

Let’s Throw Pebbles in the Ocean!

This is the first part of a 3-part article by our guest writer Stephen St. George, a Catholic born in Iraq who now lives in the United States, and who knows through direct experience what it means to be a Christian in a Muslim-majority country. Here he describes his early experiences in Iraq.

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

If I throw a small pebble into a huge body of water like an ocean, it will make small waves that have almost no effect and fade away in no time at all. Surely, if a thousand people were to each throw a pebble at the same time, the effect would be much bigger waves that would last longer.

By writing this article, I am throwing a single “pebble” in this violent, troubled “ocean” that is our present world. I hope you would join me and throw at least one pebble of truth, so that we may make a noticeable difference.

I was born in Baghdad, Iraq. I am one of seven siblings. Life was difficult, as my dad was the only breadwinner and we lived at the edge between being poor and being less poor than some of our neighbors. In a large family like mine, especially if you are the oldest, you grow “older” faster. I had my share of chores in the small apartment(s) we lived in most of my teenage years, and I was the only one (at least that’s what I thought) who knew of the financial difficulties my parents were going through. As a result, through my early years, I developed a consciousness of my surroundings that a young person might not be aware of amid the joys of being young and innocent.

I was only about four as I remember sitting on my dad’s shoulders among the thousands of spectators as the young king Faisal was being paraded in the streets of Baghdad in a golden carriage. Then later in 1958, I remember the news on the radio of the uprising and military coup that resulted in the murder of the king and his family. I distinctly remember the brutal ways in which some of those people were killed. The king’s uncle was tortured by being forced to sit on an oven with the burners on! Another relative of the king was dragged in the streets by a car or motorcycle then hung from a tree. I was seven years old then, and these events boggled my mind. How could people treat other people with such savagery? I could not find any answers, not even from any adult family member or school teacher. No one talked about these atrocities, and you were not supposed to ask any questions!

One day in 1963, I remember being at the dentist’s office with my mom, when all of a sudden we heard the thunderous mob outside running and shouting. Later, we discovered that Abd Al-Karim Qasim, the new prime minister who was part of the military coup that murdered the members of the royal family in 1958, was himself tortured and killed. Mind you, this was not an ordinary assassination, no sir! I heard on the news the details of his torture and how he was seated on a chair and spat on and beaten even after he was dead! These acts are usually carried out in the Arab world to strike fear in the population in order to quell any resistance!

Afterwards, I remember that during many walks back from school while passing by one of Qasim's former palaces, I would see his armored vehicle displayed inside the palace gates with what seemed like hundreds of bullet dents. Again this form of public intimidation was meant to scare anyone who even entertained any thoughts of dissent.

Iraq was now under the control of the Ba’ath Party, Saddam Hussein’s party.

Abdul Salam Arif was Iraq’s second president, but he died in what was then reported as a helicopter crash in 1966. All I remember from that time was what people were saying: “He went up as flesh, and came down as ashes”. This could have been another assassination/accident.

Arabs are not in favor or not even allowed to vote for their next president! The way parties come to power is through violence or intimidation!

My nightmare as a young man growing up in such a savage environment continued with memories of watching Muslims in the streets beat themselves and their young boys with chains and swords and the blood running down their faces and backs. Do an Internet search of "Muslim Ashura or Ashoura"!

I learned early on that as a Roman Catholic and a Christian, I was living in Iraq as a second-class citizen. I had no right to question anything, no right to express my opinion, unless I wanted to be shouted at, spat on, or beaten by Muslims. They don’t debate issues. They threaten you! The only truth they know is what has been burned into their brains from the Quran or the teachings from the life of Mohammed!

Talking about the lack of freedom and privacy in the Middle East, I remember the letters I received from a penpal from the USA (a girl in Pennsylvania) being opened and of course read prior to delivery. I also remember hiding from the police while walking home from school for fear of having my “long” hair shaved because of a law that forbade teenage boys from having their hair come down over their forehead! Girls, at the same time, were being stopped in the street, and if their skirt was a little above the knees, it would be ripped and their legs would be painted.

They stopped this nonsense when a minister’s daughter had that done to her! That’s how justice is served in the Middle East, not because it’s right, but because in cases like this one, it got too close for comfort to the ruling class!

Then when I was a sophomore in high school, on an early morning, the school bus was late picking me up and a few of the students who were waiting with me. We decided to walk towards Baghdad’s Liberation Square hoping to meet the bus on its way to us. I will never forget the awful sight of 14 men who were hung around the perimeter of the square. These people were found guilty of spying, “tried” the night before and used as another spectacle and warning to anyone contemplating going against the Ba’ath party in Iraq.

In the early part of the 1970s, I left everything behind and traveled to Beirut, Lebanon to seek asylum in the United States of America. I became a US citizen about 32 years ago and I’ve lived in the US for close to forty years now. I’ve seen Muslims who come to live in America, but constantly spit on it, burn its flag, and then demand respect!!??

I watch as Muslims burn Churches and murder Christians in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Kenya, and even in the West. They rape non-Muslim girls because, according to them, they don’t dress properly! Tell me, what’s a bigger offense in God’s eyes, someone who dresses provocatively, or someone who rapes or kills innocents?

From my own experience living in Iraq and Lebanon, I know that Muslims are raised and taught to hate anyone who does not believe in their Allah (not the God of Abraham and Moses)!!

But what I cannot ever understand is why some misguided souls in the West (mostly liberals) make excuses and defend what Muslims do???? Have these people lived in the “paradise” that is the Middle East for even one day? Have they seen the Muslim-on-Muslim (different Islamic sects) violence and Muslim-on-non-Muslim violence? The answer of course is an emphatic NO!!

How can a Westerner who grew up in a free country appease or even support or speak positively of Islam or Muslims actions? My take on this is, if that person is an average Joe, and he is uninformed (a topic for another article regarding the role the treasonous media is playing in misleading the general public), I sure hope he/she opens his/her eyes, ears, and mind and SEE and HEAR what’s going on around him/her. On the other hand, if we are talking about politicians, and they are appeasing Islam for the sake of gaining traction with this voting bloc, getting elected and having a cushy government job with endless benefits for life, then they are treasonous people who are selling out their country and countrymen for their own immediate gains!


The second and third parts of the article coming soon.


Photo Ashura by Allan Donque made available under an Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

West Midlands Liberty GB Is Formed

Do you live in the West Midlands?

Then you can join the first regional group formed for the UK's newest and most honest political party, Liberty GB. We stand for Christian civilisation, Western values, animal welfare, against Islam and political correctness.

Aaron Brian, of Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, is Liberty GB's first local organiser.

You can become a local organiser too, for the West Midlands or any other UK region.

In any event, you can visit and Like the West Midlands Liberty GB Facebook page.

Polled Muslims Support Unstunned Halal

The Facebook Muslim page Salaam News, describing itself as "The social home of progressive news relevant to Muslims, globally", has held an opinion poll on halal.

It asks: "Where do you stand on this issue? Is it ok to consume halal meats that have been pre-stunned or does the stunning render the meat impermissible for consumption? Is it something that matters to you?"

The choice given to respondents is whether they want their meat to come from stunned or unstunned animals.

The result: Stunned = 278 votes; Unstunned = 8636 votes.

And these are "progressive" Muslims. I dread to think what regressive Muslims support.

Anti-Halal-Festival Petition Signed by Thousands

A big thanks to the 3570 plus people who signed the petition started by Pete Williamson "Ban Halal Food Festival from taking place at London Excel".

An astonishing number of people in just a few days and in itself a great achievement, showing what we can do when we are well organised and determined.

Pete says: "Unfortunately we have not been able to stop the repulsive Halal Food Festival. What we have achieved is to heighten awareness of this wicked practice that is the Halal method of slaughtering animals. People from all over the world, as members of the British public, have signed the petition and left hundreds of comments. In fact I have decided to leave the petition open, if for no other reason than to display and archive all the wonderful comments."

Question Time: Insane People Denying the Obvious

What fun I had last night watching Question Time on the BBC.

Author Will Self (his name is oddly suited to him, but then everything about the man is weird) is always very entertaining. This time he surpassed himself, by denying that terrorism is a problem - especially, God (or rather Allah) forbid, Islamic terrorism.

This pearl of wisdom came in answer to a question from the audience about the risk of a terror attack in Britain after what happened in Kenya.

We are living in constant anxiety about something that doesn't exist, he pronounced referring to terrorism, just ten minutes before expounding, during a discussion on the HS2 high-speed rail project,  his various conspiracy theories about the government being in the pocket of road lobbyists and similar sinister people.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) candidate and Daily Express journalist Patrick O'Flynn dared defy this usual, BBC-chosen, Leftist audience by mentioning that multiculturalism has a responsibility for the terrorist threat in Britain.

A not so good - in the usual sense of difficult to answer - question, rhetorically and rebukingly intended, came from a woman in the public, who asked something to this effect: why do we always associate terrorism with Islam?

The answer could certainly have occurred to even the most brainwashed, or rather braindead, politically correct Marxist Islamophile on the globe, and was promptly provided by O'Flynn himself. Because we are talking about an Islamist terror group committing an atrocity in Kenya, was his self-evident reply.

He could easily have added the Muslim attacks on churches in Pakistan, the daily Islamic suicide bombers in Iraq, the violence spread by Muslims in Borneo and in the Philippines. These are just a few of the many Islamic accomplishments of the past week or so, the results of a few good days' work.

To his credit, the UKIP man was the only one to mention the constant, relentless persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries. Well done to him for reminding - or informing? - people of a subject that almost nobody would touch with a barge pole.

Of all those parties represented on the panel, UKIP is certainly the least bad. Nevertheless, O'Flynn didn't attract public attention to the fact that the profound link between Islam and terrorism - and not just terrorism, but indeed all violence against non-Muslims - goes well beyond the recent events in Kenya.

This is what my party, the newest and most honest British party, Liberty GB, would have done, if one of us had been sitting at that desk.

I missed some of the first part of the programme, in which they discussed Labour's energy price freeze policy. Considering that Labour is almost single-handedly responsible for the skyrocketing utility bills of recent years - that created Britain's new fuel poverty - due to the previous government's senseless subsidy of wind power and other "renewables", that discussion would have been amusing to see.

Watching Question Time is always a comical experience. When you see it you have to laugh or cry. I prefer to laugh.

Welfare State, Students, Immigration

In the UK there is a constant talk of the need for immigrants’ skills and an endless repetition of the fact that there are many necessary jobs and positions which would be left vacant without immigration.

Let’s see. Is it the number of unskilled and manual workers which is not high enough to fill the vacancies?

In that case, why are there millions of people on welfare in Britain?

In the United Kingdom, 5.6 million people of working age are not working and receive state hand-outs in various forms – and this number has remained stubbornly high even at times when the economy has grown (it has been over 5 million for more than a decade).

It is a well-known fact that the system is abused and the welfare money goes to many people who don’t or shouldn’t really need it, but that’s what happens.

And if the labour force which is needed and imported from abroad is composed of skilled, professional and intellectual workers, why are all the university students supported in their studies by the taxpayers through various public grants and loans not available to fill these positions?

Because, having removed the market as the force to influence people’s choice in university courses and careers, we end up with a great number of the university population specializing in ‘media studies’ and other subjects which are of no or little relevance to the country’s economy, while the much-needed skills are overlooked.

After all, if the state is paying for somebody’s studies, why should that person or his/her family bother so much about what course or faculty to choose? It is not an investment to consider carefully.

So, British taxpayers are in the enviable position of having to support an enormous number of unemployed unskilled or semi-skilled people because ‘there are no jobs’, having to pay for students’ education and, on top of all that, being told that they have to put up with huge figures of immigration because ‘there are not enough workers and skills in this country’.

Clash of civilizations?

Q: So, we are now facing "the clash of civilizations": the West and Islam, two civilizations which are equally great.
A: Yes.
Q: On one side, we have the civilization that gave the world democracy, the concept of rights, Roman law, Greek tragedy, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, modern science, technology, Michaelangelo, Caravaggio, Raphael, Giotto, Brunelleschi, perspective in art, Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Verdi, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Euclid, Saint Peter's Basilica, the Empire State Building, Kant, Voltaire, ...
A: OK, let me stop you. We've got an idea.
Q: On the other side, we have the civilization that gave the world the Koran, a few pretty mosques, the numbers notations we use...
A: No, actually the numbers we use were invented in India. We call them Arabic only because they reached us through Arabic translations of the original Sanskrit texts.
Q: Even the zero?
A: Yes, the zero as well is an Indian invention.
Q: OK, so on the other side, we have the civilization that gave the world the Koran, a few pretty mosques, and er... a few pretty mosques.

With Gays and Blacks, We Have Gone to the Opposite Extreme

The problem is that people don’t seem to be able to find the right middle.

There was a time when homosexuals were wrongly persecuted, when they couldn't even be open about their homosexuality, and that certainly was a bad state of affairs. Luckily we have gone past it and that’s fine.

But people are so afraid that we could go back to that time that any criticism of homosexuality is taken as a sign of "anti-gay" discrimination: this is the opposite extreme, in which the persecution and discrimination are actually at the expense of those who disagree with the orthodox, dominant ideology that homosexuality must be perfectly OK from all viewpoints, medical, psychological and ethical, which is not necessarily the case.

The wide acceptance of the idea that homosexuals should be free to declare their homosexuality, that others should not look at them as they did in the past, that they should be treated like everybody else, is positive, it's an improvement.

This does not necessarily mean that homosexuality is a good thing for those involved as well as for society at large.

That’s where we should try to find the right middle. We should be able to - we should feel mature enough as a society to - recognise that having an accepting attitude towards homosexuals does not imply thinking that homosexuality is just another sexual orientation, like heterosexuality, or lifestyle, and that there's no problem associated with it. These are two different things.

A similar mistake has been made with blacks, Jews, and in relation to all those bigoted and discriminatory positions of the past, which have now been transformed into the opposite extreme, as if to guard ourselves against the possibility of relapsing into those bigoted ideas. That is not the right approach, going from one wrong extreme to the other wrong extreme is not the way to prevent the first wrong extreme. It’s actually the opposite.

That's what happens in the sphere of immigration and racism.

There is now a severe repression of ideas in people, who can’t say anything negative about blacks or Muslims, or - although not half as much as a few years ago - express negative positions about immigration, without risking accusations of racism. Even disagreeing with Obama - who is probably the worst president of the US so it’s easy to disagree with his policies - is enough for being called a racist. Criticising Israel, although people who do are usually wrong, attracts labels of anti-Semitism which are not necessarily correct, and so on.

So there is a situation in which you go from one extreme to the other for fear of relapsing into the first extreme, whereas in fact it’s much more likely that you’ll relapse into it if you got it wrong the second time round again. For instance, the current ferocious repression of anything that may be even remotely construed as racist or anti-Semitic or Islamophobic or homophobic may produce a climate to which people in the end will rebel, and in such a rebellion against the thought police system they will risk reverting to the original wrong ways again.

1968 Greens, Reds, Pinks and the Normalisation of Paedophilia

The Left, red or green (it's usually both), tends to have no moral objection to the normalisation of paedophilia, the next step after the normalisation of homosexuality.

People on the Left, which includes "gay" activists, have in recent years kept this issue quiet without wishing to disclose their real intentions to the public to avoid the probable risk of jeopardizing their goal of normalising homosexuality, but, now that they have won that battle after achieving homomarriage, that acceptance of paedophilia is part of their agenda will become increasingly explicit.

I want to clarify that I am totally for protecting the environment, but not environmentalism, an offshoot of socio-communism that has hijacked the conservation cause for the Left.

Just before the German elections, a Pedophilia Scandal: Old Document Haunts Green Party Candidate:

Leading Green Party candidate Jürgen Trittin is under heavy scrutiny this week after researchers found his name on a decades-old paper supporting pedophiles.

With the general election only days away, the Green Party's top candidate Jürgen Trittin is under fire over a document more than 30 years old. The party manifesto, which he approved, advocated legalizing sex with minors.

The latest politician to be dragged into the Green Party's pedophilia scandal is Jürgen Trittin, the party's top candidate in the upcoming federal election. He was responsible for a 1981 election platform that included a call for the decriminalization of sex between children and adults.

The platform belonged to the Göttingen branch of the Alternative Green Initiative List (AGIL), a forerunner of the current Green Party, and was uncovered by political scientists Franz Walter and Stephan Klecha of the Göttingen Institute for the Study of Democracy. The organization was hired by the Green Party in May to investigate the party's affiliations with pedophile activists in the 1980s.

In an essay for the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung newspaper on Monday, Walter wrote that Trittin, at the time a student who was running for city council, was one of five members of an editorial board that signed off on the election manifesto. The document called for sex between children and adults to be made exempt from punishment, so long as it involved neither violence nor the threat of violence.

As Walter explains, it was not uncommon for the AGIL to take over the platforms of minority interest groups [like homosexuals and paedophiles].

Jürgen Trittin told Die Tageszeitung that the researchers' findings were correct. "It was simply taken for granted that we adopted one-to-one the demands of various fringe initiatives, such as those of the 'Homosexual Action Göttingen,'" Trittin said. "The responsibility was mine and it's a mistake I regret."...

The Green Party is spending more than €200,000 ($267,000) on the study to investigate its past history of support for pedophiles. The price tag is a handsome sum, considering the party's annual budget of €5 million, and suggests the party is eager to clarify and resolve the murky chapter in its history.

That history caught up with the party earlier this year, when comments on children's sexuality in the 1975 autobiography of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Green Party representative in the European Parliament, resurfaced in the media.

The most recent revelation comes at an unfortunate time for the Green Party. With less than a week to go before Germany's general election, Trittin's political opponents have already begun to exploit the issue to discredit his campaign.

"Trittin needs to consider whether he really is the right man to be fronting the Greens," said Philipp Missfelder of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Alexander Dobrindt, general secretary of the conservative Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), told the website of the magazine Focus that Trittin should withdraw from his position as the Green Party's leading candidate in the election.

Regarding 1968 revolts' hero, revolutionary and anarchist Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Wikipedia writes:

In 1978 an edition of Pflasterstrand, an alternative magazine Cohn-Bendit edited, described being seduced by a 6-year old girl as one of the most beautiful experiences the author had ever had...

Cohn-Bendit published a number of provocative statements regarding "sex with children" in the 1970s and early 1980s, notably in his 1975 book "The Great Bazaar" where he describes erotic encounters with five-year-olds in his time as a teacher in an anti-authoritarian kindergarten. He has been accused as advocating pedophilia since at least 2001. This controversy re-erupted in 2013; as Cohn-Bendit received the Theodor Heuss Prize, there was a rally by anti-pedophilia activists. The affair triggered wider research into the pro-pedophilia activism which prevailed in the German Green Party (without direct involvement on the part of Cohn-Bendit) well into the 1980s. An article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung uncovered numerous "repulsive" passages (abstoßende Texte) in Pflasterstrand, a leftist magazine which appeared under the editorship of Cohn-Bendit, and cited a 1978 defense of Cohn-Bedit's of this editorial practice, as well as an appearance of Cohn-Bendit in a French television talkshow in 1982 where he described being erotically undressed by a five-year-old. Cohn-Bendit reacted to these allegations by claiming that his descriptions of erotic encounters with pre-pubescent girls were not based on true events but were merely intended as what he today calls "obnoxious provocation" aimed at questioning sexual morals at the time that "shouldn't have been written that way."

Cohn-Bendit is accused of endorsing sex with children and may even have practiced it.

In his 1975 book "The Great Bazaar" he wrote: "It happened several times, that a few children would open the fly of my pants and begin to stroke me. That represented a problem."

These leading figures are only a side of the problem. When the German Green Party was founded in 1980, paedophiles were part of it. Some documents show that the influence of paedophiles on the party was much stronger than previously thought.

At the first party convention the platform was shared by "Urban Indians," who wanted the "legalization of all affectionate sexual relations between adults and children." In the early years there were in the German Green Party groups which advocated the liberalisation and decriminalisation of sex with children, among which was the "Working Group on Gays and Pederasts."

From Spiegel:

He is a boy, roughly 10 years old, with a pretty face, full lips, a straight nose and shoulder-length hair. The wings of an angel protrude from his narrow back, and a penis is drawn with thin lines on the front of his body.

The 1986 image was printed in the newsletter of the Green Party's national working group on "Gays, Pederasts and Transsexuals," abbreviated as "BAG SchwuP." It wasn't just sent to a few scattered party members, but was addressed to Green Party members of the German parliament, as well as the party's headquarters in Bonn...

No political group in Germany promoted the interests of men with pedophile tendencies as staunchly as the environmental party. For a period of time in the mid-1980s, it practically served as the parliamentary arm of the pedophile movement.

A look at its archives reveals numerous traces of the pedophiles' flirtation with the Green Party. They appear in motions, party resolutions, memos and even reports by the party treasurer. That is because at times the party not only supported its now forgotten fellow campaigners politically, but also more tangibly, in the form of financial support...

[P]edophiles, noisy and wearing colorful body paint, were often a visible part of Green Party gatherings.

Left and Right: Do These Words Mean Anything?

Is Ron Paul a left or right winger?

He is a Republican, so on the face of it you would say he's on the right.

But his foreign policies, particularly his pacifist stance and opposition to American military interventions, place him on the left.

Not only that. He, like other Republicans and conservatives, is a libertarian.

Let me start with a little historical digression.

The first time I came across the word "libertarian" it was in conjunction with "communist". Communist libertarians is another name for anarchists: that's how many anarchists in the 19th century were called, to distinguish them from individualist libertarians like the French Proudhon, the man who wrote "Property is theft".

This association between libertarianism and anarchism should not be surprising, since anarchy, as its Greek origin indicates (privative alpha + arkhe, power), is the absence of a state, and libertarianism is the drive towards decreasing the size and reach of the state. So anarchism is, in some way, just the extreme form of libertarianism.

And here we have a clear paradox of the left-right divide in politics: anarchism is a classical leftist movement. At the time of the First International, Karl Marx and the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin famous disagreements did not focus on the goal: they both wanted the same thing, the abolition of the state. Their disagreement only concerned the means to reach that goal: Bakunin advocated the establishment of anarchism immediately after the proletarian revolution, whereas for Marx after the revolution there was to be a transitory phase, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he (obviously wrongly) thought would eventually dissolve itself to give way to anarchism.

So, we have a political position typically associated with the right, libertarianism, which is just on the same spectrum of opinions of Marxist and anarchist aspirations.

What is ironical, of course, is also to think of classical communists wanting to abolish the state, albeit only after establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, when today leftists the world over are trying to increase the size of governments beyond any autocrat's wildest dreams.

The problem is also to do with the meaning of the terms "freedom" or "liberty" which, like "justice", can have diametrically opposed interpretations.

In the case of justice, some people believe that what is just is that everybody, irrespective of what good or bad, much or little they have done, should get identical outcomes and have as much as possible the same: they see justice as a leveller.

Others think that justice means rewarding people for what they have done good, punishing them for what they have done bad, and doing neither if people omitted to do good or bad: they see justice as a life guidance, something that guides you to make the right choices.

The latter definition, in my view, is the one that is likely to produce better results in helping people to express the best of themselves and achieve their potential, whereas applying the former interpretation of justice almost inevitably leads to complacency and even downright abuse.

As for liberty, Marx stretched its meaning beyond recognition, in a way reminiscent of the Orwellian 1984's "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is knowledge". He thought that liberty meant giving people everything they needed, he was thinking of freedom from need rather than freedom from the controlling power of others, be they the government or other citizens.

The latter is clearly the historical liberal interpretation and the most commonsensical use of the word.

It is no coincidence that the communist and even socialist distortion of the meaning of freedom has led to some of the most oppressive, repressive and liberty denying regimes the world has ever seen.

Since "libertarian" derives from "liberty", again it is no coincidence that the conflict of opinion surrounding the latter is transferred into the controversy around the former.

In conclusion, my answer to the question that forms the headline of this article is that the words "left" and "right" in politics still have a meaning, in the sense that they represent real differences in world views about humanity, society and government, albeit not as clear cut and defined as some would have it.

I don't expect to treat this issue exhaustively in an article, but it's fair to say that the demarcation lines are much more blurred than is usually thought.

In particular, what I find objectionable is some behaviour, much more often seen in people on the left, of referring to the opposite end of the spectrum, in this case "right wing" or "fascist", as an epithet to shut down debate in the absence of valid arguments.

The fact that there is a certain overlapping, historical and ideological, between right and left makes this behaviour even more irrational.

I started with Ron Paul as an example of a difficult definition, now I'll give the example of myself: on most things I would be classified as being on the right, but I am a supporter of animal rights. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.


Photo by George Kelly

Global Warming or Global Control?

Well done to Australia's new Prime-Minister-Elect, the conservative Tony Abbott.

He pledged, as his two top priorities, to stop the tide of asylum seekers to the country and to scrap the highly unpopular tax on carbon emissions. Both very admirable intentions.

Cutting CO2 does nothing for the environment but a lot for the economy: it destroys it.

The environmentalist movement is fundamentally socio-communist. It has proclaimed itself the only saviour of the earth, but the reality is that one does not need to agree with its pseudo-scientific, highly ideological theories or belong to it to care about the environment.

Being Leftist, environmentalists want to see the role of the government expand and its control over individuals and businesses snowball.

Communism is internationalist in nature - "Workers of the world unite!", Karl Marx said. The first socialist upheaval, the Russian Revolution, was supposed to spread to other countries and only reluctantly, when that became impossible, the idea of "socialism in one country" was accepted.

An old dream of communists is that of a world government. This internationalism (and transnationalism) is another of the many aspects in which Muslims and Leftists are similar - along with promising paradise on earth, being utopian and therefore authoritarian and dictatorial - , and which make them such ideal allies.

"Global warming" is the perfect pretext for global governance and control. Not coincidentally Canadian communist Maurice Strong, a great believer in world government, was behind the project of establishing the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The world government - "global problems require global solutions" - that environmentalists and people like Strong have in mind is such that in comparison the European Union pales into insignificance.

The most absurd aspect of any kind of policy designed to tackle climate change is that, even if the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory were true, which is highly doubtful, there is very little we could do to stop this alleged Armageddon.

One thing on which even the warmists agree is that anything we could do - even if we completely stopped carbon emissions, shut down our economies and returned to a primitive society - would, at most, delay the catastrophe by a few years.

In addition, since the Kyoto Protocol is not binding for countries like China and India, by far the most populous, carbon-emitting nations in the world, even that small delay would not be achieved.

That in itself is enough to show that saving the planet is not the reason and the purpose for all this gigantic tumult and scare. Frightening people is a very good way to control them, and whoever controls the energy production and consumption - by dictating what individuals and companies can and most importantly cannot do - controls the economy and therefore the world.

Obama's Top Aide: No Concrete Evidence of Assad's Responsibility for Gas Attack

A survey by The Associated Press of members of the US House of Representatives shows that, of all those declaring a position, 6 times more respondents were or were leaning towards opposing military intervention in Syria than supporting it.

This anti-war skepticism corresponds to that manifested in recent polls by the American public, even among those who believe that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack.

This allegation is far from established beyond a reasonable doubt, as has been admitted even by Obama's Chief of Staff.

The number of people killed by the sarin attack on August 21 in Syria is disputed. The US cites intelligence reports saying that over 1,400 people died, and the Anti-Assad Syrian Coalition, in Washington to lobby members of Congress to vote in favour of an American intervention in the war, claims the number is even higher.

But in fact only 502 have been confirmed dead.


http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/US-Common-sense-test-holds-Assad-responsible-4796462.php

Going to War to Help Jihadists? Here's an Idea!

It makes me furious when I hear US Secretary of State John Kerry or other people like him say that we must not remain idle but respond to the atrocity committed by Assad in using chemical weapons against Syrians.

For many years now hundreds of thousands of Christians have been persecuted, massacred and ethnically cleansed predominantly by Muslims the world over. Every five minutes, it has been calculated, a Christian is killed just because of his faith and nothing else. This is in addition to all the other causes for which Christians as well as non-Christians are killed, like wars, civil wars and so on.

Does this not constitute an atrocity, in Kerry's, Cameron's, Obama's, Hague's, Hollande's estimeed opinion?

Judging from their actions it doesn't: they have hardly uttered a word about this crime of the greatest magnitude, let alone expressed the intention to go to war because of it.

If your predisposition to moral outrage is so selective as to become criminally discriminatory, if the expression "double standard" is as weak to describe your behaviour as that of a man jumping into a pond to help person A keep her hair dry while letting person B drown, you have lost any credibility in claiming ethics as the reason for your actions.

What, if not morality then, could be the motive of Kerry, Obama and their gang of interventionists?

You'll forgive me if I cannot find any without the consultation of a standard psychiatry text, which I don't have handy at the moment on my holiday in St Ives, Cornwall.

Unless the decisive reason against going to war on the side of Assad's opponents, the "Syrian" (20 percent, though: 80 percent are foreign jihadists going wherever non-Muslim infildels can be killed and Sharia states imposed) rebels dominated by Al-Qaeda and other terrorist elements, gives us some clue to at least Obama's desires.

The rebels have made clear their intentions of moving their jihad warfare to Europe and America when they're done with Syria. Once Syrian Christians will be dead, or have fled the country, or converted to Islam, or accepted subjugation to their Islamic masters and paid the special jizya tax imposed on non-Muslims, once all the other niceties of sharia law will be forced on Syria, the jihadists' task there will be accomplished, finished, and they'll have to find somewhere else to do their good work.

Since, thanks to our wonderful, progressive program of encouraging invasion from the Third World, celebrating diversity and welcoming Islam, many of these jihadists are European, nothing will be easier for them than coming back home and putting to use the various techniques and skills they've acquired in the Syrian war: there is nothing like hand-on experience for mastering a job to perfection.

America will be next too.

Given that Barack Hussein Obama was born and raised a Muslim and has never failed to show the strength of his ties with and admiration for his old religion, the only reason, unlikely as it might be, for the senseless act of helping Muslim terrorists in their program of Islamisation of all countries, including ours, can only be that this does not appear senseless to someone who shares the same Islamic ideals.

I'm sincerely hard-pressed to find other motivations that don't involve a study of the level and pathology of the mental faculties of the war hawks (with apologies to these magnificent birds of prey for the unflattering comparison).

Welfare Reform Is as Necessary as Immigration Reform

It is no coincidence but on the contrary highly significant that the British modern welfare state was born after the Second World War.

Having fought together against Hitler provided that sense of unity that is necessary for people to willingly financially support total strangers.

For a welfare state to succeed that sense of an entire society's belonging figuratively to the same family is a conditio sine qua non. Another necessary condition is a general sense of trust, the perception that the welfare recipients will not exploit and take advantage of the welfare donors' generosity.

Both these indispensable conditions have now been lost.

Immigration is undoubtedly a cause of this loss, but it is not the only one. The welfare state over the long decades of its existence has produced what American sociologist Charles Murray and others call the "underclass" (incidentally another sign that the US, contrary to European popular opinion, does have an extensive welfare state too).

The underclass is a new social class, it is no longer the working class. It is not characterised by its economic status so much as by its behaviour, mores and ethos.
It has a disproportionately high illegitimacy rate, school drop-out rate, unemployment rate and crime rate. It is anti-social in its outlook, attitudes, rules and codes.

In the US the underclass is disproportionately black but in Britain it is mainly formed by indigenous Britons.

This is why only solving the problem of immigration will not solve the welfare problem.

That pro-welfare consensus after World War II does not exist any more. Now the opposite consensus exists.

One of the purported reasons for the creation of the welfare state was the desire to reduce income inequality (or relative poverty), portrayed as a cause of social unrest.

I don't know if enough evidence exists that income inequality causes social unrest. As is well known, correlation is not causation.

Social instability is more likely to be caused by poverty - real, absolute poverty in relation to one's needs, not the feeling of envy generated by looking over the fence at the neighbour's garden and seeing there rare orchids not found in one's own pretty but not luxurious garden - not income inequality. Moreover, it is caused by agitprop elements who keep telling people that they are treated unfairly (a bit like the US black leaders, that author Tammy Bruce calls "merchants of misery", who have made a career out of perpetuating in blacks a never-ending sense of victimhood and desire for retribution).

At the moment, much of Western social unrest is caused by the disastrous effect of governments' overspending, mostly due to elephantine welfare states.