Political Seismic Shock across Europe

At least one senior Tory politician has realised what the new party Liberty GB has been saying since its inception a year ago.

From "European elite's refusal to accept change is fuelling extremism, warns leading Tory", in today's Daily Express:

Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox believes there will be "a seismic shock" across the continent as support grows for parties such as France's National Front and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands.

In a speech due to be delivered to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Williamsburg, Virginia tomorrow, Dr Fox is expected to blame EU leaders for the rise in extremism, as politicians are failing to represent the fears of the electorate properly.

He is due to say: "The heavily cosseted and pampered European political class in Brussels are only too willing to blame the citizens of the EU for the rise of political extremes on both left and right of the spectrum.

"They seem congenitally incapable of asking themselves whether it is their behaviour and their political brittleness that is the primary driver of this process."

It seems obvious that Fox sees what he calls "rise of political extremes" as something to be avoided, and I agree with him if he refers to communism and fascism.

But, from his references to the Dutch PVV and the French National Front, I suspect that he considers as extremism the totally legitimate and wholly natural resistance of European populations to being invaded, colonised and Islamised.

This confusion is useful to the Conservatives, though, as they can proclaim to be the bulwark against both real extremism and, more importantly, the much more likely electoral threat posed to them by the emerging parties that don't ignore but represent people's worries about immigration and Islam, of which Liberty GB is a still small but unwavering example.

The article ends thus:

Dr Fox's comments come after a ComRes poll published yesterday shows the Conservatives are set to finish third in May's European elections, with Ukip winning the vote.

Commissioned by the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror, the poll puts Ukip on 30 per cent of the vote, Labour on 28 per cent and the Tories on 21 per cent.

Patriotism from Life-Saving to Destructive Force

Below is one of the most lucid and insightful analyses of patriotism I've come across, dissecting the various stages through which this sentiment can go and clarifying at which of them it can or does become toxic.

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.", said the Swiss Paracelsus, one of the early chemists, founder of the discipline of toxicology. Even the best life-giving medicine, capable of restoring health if used in the appropriate way, may cause serious harm if misused and administered in the wrong dose.

I have some doubts only about the specific movements to which the poisonous level of patriotism is attributed, and I spot a certain harshness in the way the excerpt treats the USA, one of my favourite countries.

Also notice that, although the passage only deals with country patriotism and references to God and religion in it only concern Christianity, the final stage, the description of the "lowest rung of the ladder" can very neatly be applied to Islamic patriotism (or nationalism).

It is an extract from the upcoming book Democracy as a Neocon Trick by my friend, author and thinker Alexander Boot. That's how he describes it:

It's a thorough debunking of every political presupposition of modernity. The conclusion is the same as that reached by T.S. Eliot: democracy (the modern, unchecked version thereof) is incompatible with Christianity -- and therefore the Western political tradition. But Eliot had other irons in the fire, which is why he didn't approach the subject as systematically as I try to.

These are Alex's other books.

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

Obviously Americans were not the first people to love their birthplace. Patriotism may have been the last refuge of a scoundrel to Dr Johnson, and indeed many a scoundrel has used it as such. But there is nothing wrong with loving one’s country, especially if it is lovable. (“For a country to be loved it ought to be lovely” was how Burke put it.) However, patriotism elevated to the perch previously occupied by religion is always pernicious. Here it would be useful to consider various levels of patriotism as expressed through everyday phrases uttered to describe them. This is best imagined as a ladder, with degrees of patriotism forming descending rungs.

“I love my country” sits at the top. This is a laudable statement. The country in which one is born and grows up does not have to be ideal any more than a woman has to be ideal to be loved. Whether it is perceived as perfect or flawed, one’s own country offers the degree of intimacy, warmth and shared historical memory that is keenly felt and cherished. Like two siblings who possess a knowledge inaccessible to a stranger, countrymen – regardless of their individual differences – are united by a bond as strong as it may be invisible to outsiders.

To expand on this observation, earlier I pointed out the intellectual weakness of the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” But the phrase is unassailable on a sub-intellectual level: a nation truly becomes one when most people in it regard most of the same truths as self-evident. In that sense the American states had been united even before the Declaration – that is, united in what most of their denizens accepted as axiomatic. Such shared knowledge and mutual understanding indeed come close to the feelings of two siblings: in that sense, brotherly love and love of one’s country are similar.

Nor is there anything wrong with regarding one’s country as unlike any other. All countries are different; if they were not, we would not have so many different countries. This is so obvious that one would think it hardly needs saying. But of course what matters here is not the text but the subtext: when people insist that their country is exceptional, they usually do not mean ‘different from…’, they mean ‘better than…’. They are entitled even to that opinion, as long as they recognise that tastes may differ.

Moving down a step, “I love my country, right or wrong” begins to be problematic. However, the problem is not insurmountable: after all, though we like for something, we love in spite of everything. A normal son cannot always stop loving his mother just because she is a compulsive shoplifter. Nor will a normal mother stop loving her son even if he boasts a string of juvenile convictions before his sixteenth birthday. So perhaps Burke’s aphorism quoted above ought to be ever so slightly modified. A country has to be lovely to be liked – loving it is a slightly different matter.

Another step down, and we overhear the statement “I love my country because it is always right.” Between this step and the previous one a line was crossed separating patriotism from jingoism. No country is always right. The belief that one can be is as false as it is widespread at the American grassroots.

When such sentiments are translated into action, we begin to leave behind the rivers supposedly flowing with milk and honey and approach a swamp fuming with putrid emanations. Implicit in this statement is tribal, what before the advent of political correctness used to be called Hottentot, morality: if I steal his cow, that is good; if he steals my cow, that is bad. It took several millennia of civilisation to overcome such tribalism, and by the looks of it the job has never been finished.

Another step down, and the morass sucks us in waist-high. Here one hears “My country is always right because it is guided by God in everything it does.” Typically this has nothing to do with any true religious faith: after all, Christ was unequivocal in stating that his kingdom was not of this world. America or any other country is ‘under God’ because everything is – but only for that reason.

At this level ‘manifest destiny’ and ‘a city on a hill’ are joined by the ‘Third Rome’ of Russia (replaced for a few decades by a more aggressive communist messianism) and the ‘Gott mit uns’ of the SS. The underlying assumption is that our actions cannot be judged by infidels, only by God, and he has given us an open-ended endorsement. Thus anything we do is justified simply because we do it.

The lowest rung reaches to the bottom of the swamp, where real creepy-crawlies take refuge. Here the sentiment is “Because our country is guided by God, it is our duty to impose our ways on others, whether they want it or not. Others may be either seduced or coerced, it does not matter which, as long as they join the fold.” Since no real faith in God underlines this feeling, the explanatory clause at the beginning of the sentence may at some point be dropped for being superfluous.

Only Americans and Russians ever descend this ladder below the top two rungs in noticeable numbers, and only Americans hardly ever stumble along the way. Also unique to America is the heavy representation of this genre of patriotism in the political mainstream. In other countries it is usually relegated to the lunatic fringe, an area inhabited, say, by France’s Front National, German neo-Nazis or our own dear BNP. Other places also have individuals prepared to dive headlong into the swamp of sanctimonious jingoism, except that in those places such willing divers do not represent the dominant, nor even influential, ethos.

Multigenderalism on Facebook

After multiculturalism, now we have multigenderalism.

The Telegraph reports that, whereas until recently people had to identify themselves as "male" or "female" when they signed up for a Facebook account, from the last Valentine's Day, 14 Feb 2014, Facebook has offered users the choice of no fewer than 50 gender options, including "intersex" and "androgynous".

Politically correct imagination - with its triumph over nature and reality - knows no boundaries. I don't really think that this news requires much comment.

A Tale of Two Conferences

I recently attended two conferences. One left me full of enthusiasm, the other dispirited. The former was the Campaign for an Independent Britain's rhetorical-question-titled conference “Can Christianity and the European Union Survive One Another” on February 22. The latter was the London Evening Standard's “London Needs More Immigration” debate on March 3.

All this shows very clearly why opinion polls and other demographic or epidemiological (in medicine) studies need samples which are highily representative of the populations surveyed in order to have any meaning at all.

Neither meeting's audience was representative, both were very much self-selected, which explains my elation at the first and frustration - if not despair - at the second.

All three speeches at the Christianity and EU discussion were excellent and inspiring. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s was my favourite. His speech “Christian Europe or Federal Europe” I consider one of the best I’ve heard in a very long time. He went through a concise but complete history of the close relationship between Christianity and the West, covering all the important points in a short time, and in so doing answering some of the questions I had in my mind. An illuminating speech.

Last but not least, to see a large room full of Christians and other people quite enthusiastic and prepared to do something about Christianity was a novel, rare, wonderful experience. Admittedly, the average age was very high, which could be the only worrisome aspect.

The audience at the London immigration debate was larger, several hundred people, on average younger and multicultural.

The speakers were lacklustre, and some, like Labour MP for Tottenham David Lammy, seemed more suitable to address a kindergarten assembly than a gathering of adults interested in political issues. Suffice it to say that, for him, immigration's gift of Kylie Minogue to London was a good enough reason to support the population replacement the city has been going through.

To me, a long-time sufferer of addiction to Question Time (often a stressful experience), the discussion was very evocative of the BBC program, in that the views expressed seemed so much at odds with both reality and what people in the street would say.

Where the 70% of people in Britain who want immigration to be reduced or stopped completely - although apparently they are 65% in London, which is still two thirds anyway - had been hiding during the ES debate I don't know, but they certainly were not there.

A vote was taken at the end, which showed a majority in favour of the motion “London Needs More Immigration”. That's why George Whale of Liberty GB, who also attended the conference, suggested as this article's title "London Surrenders".

Questions that should have been asked at the immigration debate but never were

1) So far we've talked about immigration, but not much about immigrants. A particularly numerous group of them is Muslims. If the panellists take a look at a map of the world and listen to international news, they'll see that in every country in which Muslims reach a certain number - they don't need to be the majority, only a sizeable minority -, they try to impose sharia law on everybody and often use violent means to that end. What makes the panel think that Britain, once Muslims become 10, 20, or 30 percent of the population, will be the exception to the universal rule?

2) Member of the panel and Labour MP for Tottenham David Lammy said that immigration should not be stopped - far from it -, but all debate on immigration should, as it's toxic, like the debate on abortion in America. Although I disagree on his suggested repression of freedom of speech, I find his parallel appropriate. I'd also add that the reason why both debates are toxic and divisive is the same. Abortion on demand was undemocratically imposed on the American people, the majority of whom were opposed to abortion, by a in which not a law of the US Congress, but unelected judges of the Supreme Court liberalised it in the landmark Roe v. Wade case ruling. Similarly, mass and uncontrolled immigration from all over the world was imposed on the British by successive governments which never bothered to consult the opinion of the people about this huge social experiment which was going to change their lives forever in the most dramatic of ways. Doesn't the panel think that divisions within a nation are created by undemocratic and unpopular decisions of the ruling elites, which lead to forced conformism by a part of the population and opposition by the other?

3) Panellist Tessa Jowell, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, and others have claimed that resistance to change is a major reason for the hostility towards uncontrolled immigration. Does the Right Honourable Dame Tessa believe that all change should be welcome just for the sake of novelty? Should Germans have been happy when Hitler, who represented lots of changes, became chancellor?

4) If immigrants are so beneficial for London's (and one presumes Britain's) economy, how is it that, after many years of this beneficial open-doors immigration policies, the country has a national debt of one and a quarter trillion pounds, a peacetime record, equivalent to 76.6% of GDP (the highest ratio to GDP since World War II and predicted to rise to 94.30% under current trends) - although, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK -, growing at a rate of over 5,000 pounds per second? To give you an idea of how fast public debt is growing, it was only £0.53 trillion, less than half, in 2008.

Could this be because the present immigration and welfare policies, working together, are bankrupting Britain? Don't take my word for it. The most far-reaching study ever conducted on the impact of migration on taxpayers, a University College London’s study covering 16 years, concluded that immigrants from outside the EEA (European Economic Area) take £100 billion more in benefits than they pay back in taxes. Non-Europeans immigrants dig a deep hole in our finances: the amount taken in benefits and services by them is 14% higher than money put back.

European immigrants pay 4 per cent more into the tax system than they take out, while British-born people pay in 7 per cent less than they receive from the state.

But this does not mean that, as the spin goes, immigrants positively contribute to Britain. It just means that a high number of even hard-working European immigrants hurts the British economy, as they take jobs that would otherwise be filled by British people, who in turn because of that are on the dole and a burden for taxpayers. If natives did those jobs, they would contribute to the revenue the same amount of tax as the immigrants, instead of living on benefits.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) report Work for the Dole shows that it’s not true, as we often hear, that the jobs simply aren’t there, particularly with the difficult economic situation. Its analysis shows that 3.5 million new jobs have been created since 1997, and that employment today stands at a higher level than at any time in UK history. As 2.5 million jobs were created since 2000, out-of-work welfare claimant rolls stayed about the same. UK welfare claimants were not moving into work as jobs were created, while 68% of the jobs created were taken by immigrants prepared to work hard rather than rely on benefits, and while many British people on out-of-work benefits evidently weren’t interested in the new jobs.

Stopping uncontrolled immigration, combined with a plan for helping and training natives on the dole to get into work - as outlined in the TPA’s document -, is what is needed, and this is what the Liberty GB party has in its manifesto policies.

The question for the panel is: why don't you all stop talking nonsense and start joining and voting for Liberty GB?

Kent Tenants Evicted While Immigrants Move In

First published on Liberty GB's European Election website

by Enza Ferreri


Landlord to evict British families on benefits to make room for Eastern European migrants, headlines the Mirror.

The landlord in question is Fergus Wilson, who owns over 1,000 properties around the Ashford area, in central Kent. He explains that he has issued eviction notices to all of his 200 tenants who depend on welfare to cover their rent.

The reason is very simple: in the last two years, while none of his tenants who work has defaulted, more than half of those on housing benefits have. Many of the evicted tenants will be replaced by Eastern European immigrants with jobs, whom he describes as “a good category of tenant who don’t default on the rent."

Mr Wilson is the rule rather than the exception. The National Landlords Association says that as many as 4 out of 5 of its members won't even consider renting to anyone on benefits.

What happened is that rent prices have gone up due to increased demand for accommodation caused by immigration-fuelled population explosion, while housing benefits have been reduced by the Coalition that needs to find a way to stop the economic blackhole created by the past Labour government from expanding and swallowing up the whole country.

Mr Wilson is right when at the end of the short video he says that the fundamental problem is that there are too many people and not enough houses.

We don't want to apportion blame to anyone here, except the previous and current governments who have allowed this situation to develop. People tend to act on individual self-interest, be they the immigrants who leave their countries looking for a better life and work hard for it, the landlords who operate for profit, or the benefit claimants who find ways to make ends meet and stop paying rent.

It's just the role of those in power to protect the borders and the population of the country who elected them for that purpose. Families and pensioners who were born and bred in Britain becoming homeless because of unregulated and out-of-control immigration is a sufficiently good reason to withdraw votes from the Labour, who are the most responsible for the immigration disaster, and the Coalition partners Tories and LibDems, who haven't done even remotely enough to reverse it.

Liberty GB is the only credible party in the 22 May European Elections which does not compromise on immigration and on putting the interests of British people first.

Nationalism or Patriotism?

Is nationalism a good thing or a bad thing?

Some people say that nationalism is bad, whereas patriotism is good.

In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "patriotism" is defined as love for one's country or devotion for it, even to the point of sacrifice. It seems that there is no excess of patriotism in this sense, as it's always positive.

The Merriam-Webster gives this example of use of the term: "You may not agree with him politically, but no one can question his patriotism."

The two examples offered by the same source for "nationalism", on the other hand, are: "The war was caused by nationalism and greed." and "Nazism's almost epic nationalism appealed to downtrodden Germans still suffering the humiliation of being defeated in World War I." Not very nice.

This belligerence associated with nationalism is reflected in the Merriam-Webster's definition of the word, with loyalty to and pride for one's country replacing patriotism's more benevolent connotations of love and devotion. The belief that one's homeland is better and more important than other countries also forms part of the definition, as well as placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups, and a desire to be a separate and independent country.

The motto "My country, right or wrong" should probably sound nationalist, not patriotic, according to these definitions.

Wikiquote would generally agree:

This page is for quotes about Patriotism, which is a term denoting a devotion to fundamental fellowship with other human beings united in common causes, usually related to identified geographic regions or those within particular political associations and boundaries. Frequently compared or contrasted with ideas of nationalism, which are often, but not always, designated as less noble manifestations of similar distinguishing impulses with a greater accommodation of bigotry.

The Oxford Dictionary is more nuanced in its distinction, though. It provides this definition and example for "patriotism":

[V]igorous support for one’s country: ‘a highly decorated officer of unquestionable integrity and patriotism’

and for "nationalism":

Patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts: ‘an early consciousness of nationalism and pride’. An extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries: ‘playing with right-wing nationalism’. Advocacy of political independence for a particular country: ‘Scottish nationalism’.

So, not all nationalism is bad, it implies, only its extreme manifestations.

"Liberals" (a misnomer) can be blamed for many things but not for having too clear ideas. Notoriously Leftist Wikipedia says:

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.

What? Maybe the second sentence's utter confusion explains why at the moment the Wikipedia entry page on patriotism is empty, and the relative Talk page reveals a political-ideological row among its editors that I have no desire to follow in this little semantic tour of mine.

Other sources use "nationalism" and "patriotism" almost interchangeably and think that both can be excessive.

What conclusion to draw from all this? I think that nationalism, as well as patriotism, can be a force for the good. Human beings, like all social animals, need to be part of a group, to "belong", and recognising one's membership of a circle of people inherently has a divisive element. If there is an "us", there must be a "them".

There is nothing wrong in this. Not only is it natural, it is also beneficial in establishing ties and communities and in the organisation of human societies. A world government is only desidered by totalitarians like people who adhere to Islamic law and communists.

To blame nations for wars and national supremacism is like, as Richard Dawkins and his fellow self-alleged - there is no element of novelty in their ideas - "new" atheists do, to blame religions for wars: absurd.

As a zoologist, Dawkins should know that many social animals including human beings, especially the younger males of the species, will fight other groups or individuals. Humans just find more inventive excuses to do so. If you abolish nationhood or religious affiliation, they will make up something else. They've already done so: now that these groupings are less strong than before, they've created more artificial ones, like football teams, as a cause to battle for, sometimes even violently.

My conclusion is simple. Words don't have a magical power. Some semantic disputes are useful to clarify issues while others are pointless. This particular one seems a borderline case to me. But, for purely pragmatic reasons, given a choice, I would opt for the term "patriotism", as it usually - albeit not necessarily - denotes a more benign feeling and less aggressive idea than "nationalism".

Religions Are Not the Same, Not even Monotheistic Religions

The often heard view that all religions are the same or, at least, the monotheistic or so-called Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are very similar is an extremely fallacious view, with potentially deleterious consequences due to the confusion it generates.

This is another myth of our age. The belief in God is too generic to form a common basis. The Christian God is not the Muslim God, and I'm referring to the concepts of God.

To say that all religions are the same (they all involve a belief in God) is equivalent to saying that all physical theories are the same (they all deal with time and space).

A concept takes its meaning from the theory of which it is part.

So, for example, Newtonian time and space are different from Einsteinian time and space. When a new physical theory (relativity) is developed, it redefines the concepts of the old theory (classical mechanics) in a way which may completely transform and revolutionize them.

So is the same for the concept of God in different religious doctrines.

To Be "Liberal" Means...

To be "liberal" means to say BCE (Before the Common Era) for BC (Before Christ), and never to call the Pope "Holy Father", but to call "Holy city (or town)" every place that Muslims call that way.

Another small detail is to write “the Prophet” Muhammad with a capital P but to write “the pope” with a small p.

Nazism Paved the Way

First published on American Thinker.

By Enza Ferreri



Of all the myriad myths spread at light speed by the enemies of Christianity and astonishingly believed without much critical thought by vast numbers of people, one of the most surreal must be the idea that Nazism was Christian.

This is part of an email I received from Tony, a supporter of my party Liberty GB, who sent me a long list of sharp attacks against Christianity after watching my video What Is Uniquely Good about Western Civilisation Derives from Christianity:

For example Adolf Hitler was a Catholic and included proclamations of his beliefs in his writings, e.g. "We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession." There are many more religious quotes from Hitler here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

What is totally missed by Tony and, unfortunately, many others is that “positive Christianity” is not Christianity at all, but a way of “restoring the old pagan Nordic values and ‘substitute the spirit of the hero for that of the Crucifixion’.”

Another thing that anti-Christians don’t consider: in Nazi times Germans were overwhelmingly Christian - even despite Nazism’s comprehensive attempts to erase Christianity from Germany and replace it with a neo-pagan religion based on pre-Christian Germanic legends -, and so Hitler had to pay some lip service in public to Christianity. But both what he and the Nazis in power did and what he said in private and is recorded tell another story, much closer to the truth.

Hitler said, as reported in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) :

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things...

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity... And that's why someday its structure will collapse... The only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little...

Christianity is an invention of sick brains...

I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.

Very modern, with references to the theory of evolution – in which the Fuhrer was an ardent believer – and the scientific “understanding of the universe” replacing Christianity.

According to the book Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) by Michael Coren, a program listing the main dogmas of the National Reich Church - a Nazi institution intended to eliminate Christianity from Germany and establishing a new pagan religion -, published in 1942 by The New York Times, ended with:

On the day of the foundation of the National Reich Church the Christian cross shall be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels inside the frontiers of the Reich and its colonies and will be replaced by the symbol of invincible Germany - the swastika.

Another lie dear to the Left that has managed to enter the collective mind is that the Popes wanted to get rid of the Jews. Countless rabbis, Jewish leaders and Israeli authorities have recognised the crucial role played by the Catholic Church in helping the Jews. In fact the Church has done more than any other institution to help and rescue Jews from Nazism.

From the Jewish Library website:

The vindication of Pius XII has been established principally by Jewish writers and from Israeli archives. It is now established that the Pope supervised a rescue network which saved 860,000 Jewish lives - more than all the international agencies put together.

The power of propaganda and how easy it is to smear a political or ideological opponent is terrifying.

The danger of a return to values and ideas espoused by the Nazis, that we hear so much about, is real, but doesn’t come so much from the direction of the usual suspects, “Islamophobic”, neo-Nazi groups, as from a far more mainstream, Leftist direction.

The threat has two sources. One is the rise of Islam in the West – aided and abetted by the Left - with its well-known ideological and historical links to Nazism and anti-Semitism. The second source is less well-known. Recent in-depth and ground-breaking historical research, thanks to the opening of national archives - previously closed to the public - after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, has thrown an entirely new light on what nurtured Nazi ideology. We already knew that Hitler and Nazism were neo-pagan and anti-Christian (despite what the Left says), but books like Karla Poewe's New Religions and the Nazis (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK), Gene Edward Veith’s Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judaeo-Christian Worldview (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) and others, go much further than that.

They reveal a worrisome, sinister similarity between Nazism and current trends, both sharing hostility for the Judaeo-Christian tradition and its ethics and increasingly embracing neo-pagan views. In many way, Nazis were pioneers of what’s happening today. About Nazis, Poewe says:

They also rejected Christian morality. They couldn't stand the Ten Commandments. They were totally against any categorical or timeless morality. They wanted something opportunistic, something that changed with the human circumstances.

These days’ moral relativism in a nutshell.

US historian Veith has a definition for fascism that is undistinguishable from our time’s prevailing ethos: “Fascism is the modern world's nostalgia for paganism. It is a sophisticated culture's revolt against God.”

As the 10 years of historical research by Karla Poewe document, Nazism was ushered in by new religions, chiefly the German Faith Movement (Deutsche Glaubensbewegung or DGB), mixing pagan Nordic and Hindu religions.

Mirroring present-day's environmentalism and its pantheism were Himmler's proclamations of the sacred status of German lands. SS symbols, oaths and rituals were derived from ancient German and Nordic mythology. The rooms of their secret meetings were decorated with runes, prehistoric signs supposed to give the power of prophecy to anyone who could read them.

Himmler and Hitler wanted to abolish the "criminal institution of the Christian Church known as marriage", although gave up this goal as unacceptable to contemporary Germans. They’d be delighted to see how much their ideas are being vindicated nowadays.

There was a "secular christening" for illegitimate children, called "SS name-giving", created by Himmler, complete with swastikas and runes.

About homosexuality, Poewe said:

Hauer's DGB bunde shared with National Socialism a tendency toward homoerotism. Hauer himself was permissibly heterosexual, but "homosexuality was very tolerated in these youth movements, and a high percentage of the SA and SS were homosexual or bisexual. People like to think that because Adolf Hitler murdered (SA leader) Ernst Rohm, who was homosexual, he was repressive of homosexuality. But that wasn't the case. It's a myth to think the Nazi movement was against homosexuality. Far from it; it wasn't sexually repressive at all.

So, here we have it: the Nazis paved the way, and now we can follow in their futuristic, progressive path: marriages are in decline, Christianity is dying, illegitimacy is on the rise, paganism seems the way forward, and homosexuality is making great advances towards normal status.


Photo by Marion Doss (Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0).

Europe Equates Communism with Nazism

Something good is coming out of Europe.

On 6 February the European Union has called on Saudi Arabia to allow public worship for all faiths:

[T]he European Parliament said that while Saudi Arabia was an important strategic partner, Saudi authorities should accept that it is a human right for individuals to worship any religion in public.

Issues like terrorism, Israeli-Palestinian peace, the Syrian conflict, post-Arab-Spring transition, and better relations with Iran, were all key areas in which the EU said Saudi co-operation was needed.

However, it made clear that if this partnership "is to be effective, [Saudi Arabia] must respect basic human rights and civil liberties".

MEPs demanded that the Saudi state show "respect the public worship of any faith and to foster moderation and tolerance of religious diversity".

Saudi Arabia has a poor track record on religious freedom. In February 2013, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Al al-Sheikh said it is "necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula".

Article 23 of Saudi Arabia's constitution says: "The state protects Islam; it implements its Sharia; it orders people to do right and shun evil; it fulfils the duty regarding God's call."

While private practice of non-Islamic beliefs is protected by law, public practice is prohibited and this prohibition is enforced by the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, otherwise known as 'mutawa' or religious police.

However, the line between public and private worship is unclear. In December 2011 a group of Ethiopian Christians were arrested for "illicit mingling" when they met together to pray during Advent.

Mutawa officers patrol the streets enforcing laws such as the strict prohibition of Bibles brought to convert locals, or any form of public worship of a religion other than Islam.

According to the US State Department's Office for International Religious Freedom, Saudi Arabia continues to impose a blanket ban on all foreign non-Islamic clergy entering the country for purposes of conducting religious services.

Apostasy - conversion from Islam to another religion - is a crime punishable by death and Saudi Arabia is one of the last countries in the world where public executions still take place.

The feared mutawa also enforce strict segregation of the sexes and the absolute prohibition on the sale or consumption of alcohol.

They are frequently accused of abusing their powers, particularly when it comes to dealing with members of other faiths.

The call from the European Parliament comes two days after mutawa chief Sheikh Abdul Latif al-Sheikh was quoted in the Saudi newspaper, Okaz, as saying that he would "eliminate" religious extremists within his organisations ranks who are "advocates of sedition".

The European Parliament also called for the Saudi Arabian authorities to improve respect for religious diversity "at all levels of the education system and in the public discourse of officials".

Article 13 of the Saudi Constitution says, "Education will aim at instilling the Islamic faith in the younger generation, providing its members with knowledge and skills and preparing them to become useful members in the building of their society, members who love their homeland and are proud of its history."

The mutawa also enforce a ban on women driving, something the European Parliament also protested strongly against in its recent resolution.

"MEPs urge Saudi Arabia to remove all restrictions on women's rights, including freedom of movement, health, education, marriage, employment opportunities, representation in judicial processes, to promote women's participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life," the European Parliament stated.

MEPs called for an end to the male guardianship system that requires all women to have some form of male legal guardian, usually a father, husband or brother.

On other issues, the European Parliament recognised that new rules have stopped money being directly channelled to terrorist organisations, but MEPs called on Saudi authorities to improve control over the funding of radical militant groups by Saudi citizens and charities.

"Saudi Arabia's financial and political support for some religious and political groups in North Africa, the Middle East and Asia may result in reinforcing fundamentalist and obscurantist forces that undermine efforts to nurture democratic governance," the EU said.

"Saudi Arabia should also stop any financial or military support of extremist groups in Syria and contribute to a peaceful and inclusive solution to the conflict there."

The Saudi Interior Ministry estimates 1,200 Saudis have travelled to Syria to fight there since March 2011.

The Parliament also called for an immediate moratorium on the death penalty, as well as better protections for freedom of expression and the press, both on the internet and through other media, saying such freedoms were "essential in a free society".

The resolution also called on Saudi authorities to work to end recent violent attacks against migrant workers, as well as to release the many thousands who have been arrested and are being kept in makeshift centres.

Adopted by 47 votes to 4, the resolution is scheduled to be put to a vote by the European Parliament in full when it meets in Strasbourg in March.

Furthermore, there has been a new landmark ruling.

The " Grand Chamber" of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has recently ruled about a thorny issue, upholding the total legitimacy of the Polish law that prohibits the use and display of symbols of communist, fascist and Nazi regimes.

The Polish law has been in existence for a few years,

What is really revolutionary in this verdict is not so much its application to fascist and Nazi symbols, which have been considered anathema for a very long time - since the end of the Second World War -, as the fact that it places communism into the same bracket as fascism and Nazism, something that needed to be done.

Radical Feminists’ War on Churches

First published on New English Review.

By Enza Ferreri



The similarity between Muslims on one hand and feminist and homosexual activists on the other may superficially seem shocking, but in fact it is normal, indeed predictable.

Their enemy is the same: the decency and morality deriving from Christian civilisation.

Muslim mobs desecrate and burn churches, they break crosses. And so do feminists, with their LGBT allies.

Last 23-25 November a horde of 7,000 lesbians and pro-abortion feminists tried to storm the Cathedral of San Juan Bautista (John the Baptist) in Argentina, to desecrate and ransack it. Since the church was protected by a human shield of 1,500 young Catholic men, the violent women assaulted them physically and psychologically. The feminists spray-painted "Burn the church" and, prevented from putting that noble intention into practice, burned an effigy of Argentinian-born Pope Francis instead.

On 25 November, to coincide with Putin's visit to the Holy Father, an Italian feminist collective, "Cagne sciolte", broke into the Basilica di San Lorenzo al Verano, in Rome, to express solidarity with the Pussy Riot and protest against Putin, holding a banner containing a sexual expletive in front of the altar.

Femen's sextremists, atheists and feminists - as they call themselves - wrote on their blog:

And let's not forget the role of the church, which interferes with the freedom of women and LGBTQI persons.We are therefore convinced that the Holy Roman Church and the Orthodox Church have points of contact: an agreement between the Patriarchs at the expense of our body is always found. We will not stop and continue the fight until the last pope, the last Tsar and the last king are overthrown.

The last sentence is a homage to the anarchist roots of these deluded people. I actually remember another version of it from my student, anarchist days: "With the guts of the last pope we will hang the last king". LGBTQI stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, and Intersex", as defined by the University of Akron Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Union, but don't think that it will end there: I'm sure that more alphanumeric symbols will be continually added over time.

On 16 December, feminists and lesbians of the "XXX Feminist Collective", masked with hoods recalling those of the Russian anarchists Pussy Riot, invaded the Saint Petronio's Basilica in Bologna, Italy. They held up a banner in front of the sanctuary, reading "You occupy the clinics. We invade the churches", and shouted "Get the Church out of our ovaries".

They protested against the rejection by the European Parliament of the pro-abortion Estrela Report as an official EU Directive. Named after the Portuguese socialist Edite Estrela, the Report wanted to force all the EU member states to legalise the artificial insemination of lesbians, to declare abortion in the EU a "women's right", and to restrict the right of conscientious objection by doctors, medical staff and pharmacists in connection with abortion, contraception and artificial insemination.

Christmas Day is Muslims' favourite time of the year to carry out attacks against Christians in the Middle East, and their Western copycats seem to have the same predisposition. An activist of the feminist group Femen, Josephine Witt, interrupted the Christmas service in the 13th-century High Cathedral of St. Peter, the main cathedral of Cologne, Germany. Naked, she climbed onto the altar, from where she shouted at the congregation, showing the words "I am God" painted on her body (see video above).

The beauty of the Christmas Mass corrupted - if for a few moments - by the beast of deluded madness, the dignity of the clergy contrasted with the search for depravity and perfectioning of squalor.

The same group, Femen, has also profanated the Church of the Madeleine in Paris on December 20 and Notre Dame de Paris before that.

Therefore, when we read that last Christmas vandals decapitated the statues of a nativity scene - including that of Baby Jesus - displayed under a historical arch in the streets of the Italian city of Ancona, we cannot discern if the responsible have been Muslim or LGBT, feminist and other Leftist criminals.

And, if anyone is in any doubt about the importance of these criminal acts, we have Suzanne Moore, columnist of that bastion of neo-Marxist thinking, The Guardian, to remind us, in pure Gramscian terms, that "revolution always begins in culture".

Islam Is the Symptom, Cultural Marxism the Disease

On my Facebook page Save the West, a supporter posted this:

ANALLY RAPED A DYING WOMAN
OR: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE FROM A FAILED CULTURE MASS-MIGRATE TO A VERY CIVILISED CULTURE (WITH ALREADY FOR YEARS TOP SCORES IN THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTS)
>>> In Sweden Somali immigrant Abdi Hakim Ali is a prime example of what happens when it does go off. He first raped and sodomized a drunk woman as she slept. Weeks later he anally raped a dying woman who overdosed on drugs. Even after she perished in the midst of his attack. The vermin carried on raping her corpse.

It was followed by the link to the article that prompted his comment, Somali Immigrant Who Anally Raped Dead Body To Be Deported From Sweden.

I shared this post on the Facebook page of my party Liberty GB, with a variation:

ANALLY RAPED A DYING WOMAN
OR: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE FROM A FAILED CULTURE MASS-MIGRATE TO A CIVILISED (BUT WITH A SERIOUS DRINKING AND DRUGS PROBLEM) SOCIETY

We have to realise one thing here: Western societies are always, rightly, contrasted with Islamic ones in terms of civilisation and progress. But we should stop idealising ourselves. If our own societies were not in serious trouble after decades of Leftist ideological rule, we wouldn't have any problems of Islamisation in the first place, because Muslims would not have been allowed to immigrate here in huge numbers and impose their ways on us rather than accepting to change in order to integrate.

They cannot change without stopping being Muslim, of course. And there lies the problem. Why don't our ruling elites realise the obvious reality of what Islam is - after all, you just have to read the Quran and other Islamic scriptures, along with their many commentaries by experts like Robert Spencer and several others, whose criticisms of Islam very closely correspond to what we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears, rather than clamorously clashing with them as those of Islam apologists do?

The answer to this question is in the paragraph I wrote just above the one containing the question: "decades of Leftist ideological rule".

The Left, putting into practice - in some cases knowingly, in others not - Cultural Marxism with its theory of cultural hegemony developed by Italian Communist Party's co-founder Antonio Gramsci, has managed to make a socialist revolution without blood spilling - until now at least.

It has used culture, rather than the storming of palaces, to impose its ideas on a vast mass of people who for 50-60 years have been watching the TV channels it controls, reading the papers it dominates, seeing the films that the liberal Hollywood produces, learning in schools and universities totally imbued with its ideology.

The results can be seen in the story reported at the top of this article:

He [a Somali Muslim] first raped and sodomized a drunk woman as she slept. Weeks later he anally raped a dying woman who overdosed on drugs.

Here we have the double effect of the Left's dominion on Western societies.

On one hand, great numbers of uncontrolled, unrestricted, often illegal immigrants from the most socially backward parts of the world - which are usually Muslim - are allowed into our countries bringing with them their unchecked and unrefined mores, without even an attempt on our part to make them adapt, since we must "celebrate diversity". After all, the Left thinks that we owe them, due to our - according to the Marxist revision of history - terribly imperialist past, and anyway simply because they are poor and we are - relatively - rich.

On the other, the idea that there is something more important in life than self-gratification, the ethical thinking that derives from the West's historical Christian roots, has been gradually abandoned, along with Christianity itself. "Religion is the opium of the people" was one of the greatest of Karl Marx's dogmas. Another was: morality is bourgeois, is another form of the capitalist class's oppression of the proletariat.

Make no mistakes. The terms and expressions used today may be different - after all, fashions change, language evolves -, but the ideas are exactly the same. Marx and Engels wanted the destruction of the family and thought that children should be reared communally. They both hated the family just as much as private property.

The family is patriarchal, is a capitalist institution, they believed. Much like the feminists of our modern times, who are in many ways heirs (or heiresses) to Marxism.

The Left is ideologically and historically anti-Christian, rejects the idea that sexual life is within the ethical sphere - "it's only love" -, and is lax in its morality and self-discipline.

The epidemics of alcohol and drugs abuse, obesity, shopaholism and indebtedness, welfare dependency, fatherlessness, sexually-transmitted diseases, and many more malaises of our societies derive from the same cause: the erosion of Christian values and the triumph of Leftist doctrines.

While more and more people seem to realise the former disastrous effect of the Left's control over Western countries - multiculturalism -, unfortunately not nearly as many understand the latter, no less tragic, effect - abandonment of Christianity with its non-self-centred worldview.

When I shared the post about the Somali rapist on Liberty GB's Facebook page, it got many comments, all invariably remarking on the "Muslim immigrant rapes Swedish women" aspect of the story, but not even one observing the fact that a woman was so drunken that she didn't even notice - she is described as asleep -, and the other was dying of a drugs overdose. And this despite my purposeful editing of the post with the addition of "a civilised (but with a serious drinking and drugs problem) society" in reference to Sweden, aimed at alerting to these very serious phenomena.

One of the ways, although by no means the only one, in which the neo-Marxist indoctrination of the masses has taken place is through such a distorted caricature of Christianity and its history that it makes them unrecognisable, and it would be funny were it not tragic.

Witness this interview with my fellow member of the Liberty GB party Jack Bucky, in which the interviewer claims that Catholics used to hang homosexuals (right at the end).

He's not to be blamed. He's just rehashing the kind of myths he must have heard innumerable times.

Photo of Muslim immigrants in London courtesy of the website Britain Gallery

Not Enough Hate Crimes? Make Them Up



What's going on in the - we believed free - world?

If you look around you, you see more and more people forbidden to enter a country, put in jail or out of business just for expressing their opinion. I agree that nobody should publicly insult individuals or groups with no good reason, but there's a fine line between exposing a wrong-doing and offending the wrong-doer.

In Britain, the new counterjihad party Liberty GB's Radio Officer Tim Burton is on trial for calling Fiyaz Mujhal on Twitter “a lying Muslim scumbag”. Mr Mujhal, founder and director of Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks), had been revealed to report misleading facts and figures about presumed "Islamophobic" incidents and his organisation's public funding had been discontinued because of it.

American campaigners Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, international icons of resistance to Islamisation, have been barred from Britain exactly because they oppose Islamisation.

Now I read that in the country of the maple leaf the Free Dominion website, which is the Canadian equivalent of the USA's Free Republic, for which I write, has 5 days ago been put practically out of business by a court order.

Apparently Free Dominion offended Richard Warman, a "human rights" lawyer nicknamed "Canada’s Hatefinder General" by Mark Steyn, who describes his operational style thus:

As eventually emerged at a Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal hearing, he adopts Internet disguises and posts as a "hatemonger" on so-called "hate sites", and then sues those sites. Very foolishly, the Canadian courts have rewarded him for playing dress-up Nazi.

Hence the pessimistic forecast of Free Dominion's Mark and Connie Fournier:

This means we are barred for life from ever operating a public forum or a blog (even about cookie recipes) where the public can comment. If we do so, any one of Warman’s handful of supporters could, and probably would, use a common proxy server to avoid being traced, plant a negative comment about Warman on our site, and we would both be charged with contempt of court.

Steyn also says:

Mr. Warman joined Stormfront and other “white supremacist” websites and posted copious amounts of hate speech of his own, describing, for example, Jewish members of cabinet as “scum” and gays as a “cancer.” That’s how “hateful” Canada is: there’s so little “hate” out there that the country’s most famous Internet Nazi is a taxpayer-funded civil servant.

This reminds me of a similar comment by Tim Burton about Tell MAMA's alleged augmentation of anti-Muslim crimes described above:

Apparently – believe it or not – there is not enough 'online hate crime' to go round and some more 'online hate crime' had to be urgently manufactured to justify the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money needed to sustain the organisation.

Another example of political use of what should be the justice system is for the purpose of persecuting (as well as prosecuting) political adversaries. One of the most reported cases of unfairly applying the law to attack political foes was that of the IRS (the American tax authorities) that a year ago admitted to singling out the Tea Party and other like-minded groups.

In the US, government departments and agencies use

their powers selectively to chastise their political enemies. In a hyper-regulatory state, there are laws against everything, and everyone is guilty of being in breach of at least 300 of them at any hour of the day. I have no use for Dinesh D'Souza, for example, but it seems obvious that he's been set up as this season's Benghazi video maker. There are gazillions of $20,000 campaign-finance infractions across America, but the only guy that's been singled out is the fellow who made a hit anti-Obama movie. As John Hayward puts it, he's been

...busted for doing 59 in a 55-mph campaign-finance zone in your little compact car, while huge semi trucks full of political cash blast past you at a hundred miles an hour without the cops batting an eye.

D'Souza's enemies are gloating. As is the habit in the American system, he will most likely be prevailed upon to cop a plea in return for a reduced sentence. And everyone else will get the message: If you make a film or write a book attacking Obama, make sure it's a flop - or anyway not so big a hit it catches the regime's eye.

D'Souza is accused of contributing $20,000, which is more than the legal limit, to the Senate candidacy of his friend Wendy Long. The idea that the Obama administration has a zero tolerance policy towards campaign finance violations is absurd in the extreme. During Obama’s both 2008 and 2012 campaigns the Obama website, as John Hinderaker writes, was

deliberately designed (by disabling standard security protocols that are used by all other campaigns) to encourage illegal contributions by foreigners and donors who, like D’Souza, had already contributed the maximum allowable. No federal authority has made the slightest effort to investigate, let alone criminally prosecute, those obvious violations by the Obama campaign and an unknown number of its contributors.

And, on the subject of zero tolerance of electoral violations, how about enforcing the laws against voter fraud? Voter fraud has become an element of the Democrats’ election strategy, to the point where they react with hysteria whenever anyone tries to take steps to prevent illegal votes from being cast. If the U.S. Attorney is so concerned about honest elections, what has he, or any other law enforcement authority in New York State, done to enforce the laws relating to ballot integrity?

D'Souza's real crime is his achievement: the anti-Obama film 2016 he made is the second biggest-grossing political documentary of all time.

Femen's Violent, Anti-Christian Matriarchy Would Be Hell

Femen is a group of disgusting feminists whose main purpose seems to be aggression and ferocious attacks against Christianity and its symbols. They can't be offended for being called "disgusting" because disgust is what they constantly try to provoke in normal people.

I wonder how these men-haters would fare in non-Christian societies, like Muslim ones, for example.

Freedom of expression is for everything, of course: repugnant and meaningless displays of vulgarity as well as reasoned discourse, unworthy as well as valuable communications.

But at least we should recognise that some people use it in a mindless way, just to offend without a real objective.

And anyway, exhibitions of Femen's rotten anti-aesthetical sense in churches do violate the law, since they trespass on private property, as was the case of those "sex workers", as the politically-correct expression goes, of Pussy Riot in Russia.

Say what you like but I've signed on L'observatoire de la Christianophobie the French petition to call for the dissolution of the group Femen and the expulsion of its leader, written by the association Defensor Christi, which says:

Mr. Prime Minister,

the particularly odious profanation by a young woman member of the group Femen in the church of the Madeleine in Paris, on the morning of Friday, December 20, has rightly provoked the outrage of Christians and general disapproval of politicians Left and Right.

This new desecration, occurring after those in the Notre-Dame de Paris by the same group Femen, should be treated with the utmost rigour.

Therefore we demand from your government

1. immediate dissolution of the group Femen,

2. immediate revocation of the status of "refugee" that was granted on 9 April by OFPRA to Miss Inna Shevchenko, leader of said group Femen,

3. subsequent expulsion from our country of Miss Inna Shevchenko.

A photo of the Ukrainian Inna Shevchenko can be seen in the English newspaper The Independent, accompanying an article entitled "I don't want to be liked". That she's not after likeability is just lucky, given the aesthetic appeal of the picture in question, in which she is wearing only trousers, while her topless and misshapen torso shows the red writing "Christmas is canceled" and a policeman chases her outside Saint Peter's in the Vatican.

Read this description:

...have desecrated churches... The extremists spread feces on the walls of a Russian Orthodox Church, ordering the priest to remove all Christian symbols. ”And if we didn’t do it, they’d resort to force,” the frightened priest says.

The subject of the first sentence, which I have removed, is "Roving bands of jihadists and Salafists" in Tunisia at the time of the "Arab Spring". But it might very well have been feminist or homosexual activists.

The similarity goes even further: members of Femen call their campaigns “topless Jihad”.

Since the mainstream media will only tell you the small part of the truth that doesn't ruin Femen's image, let's turn to the website A Voice for Men for some facts, all duly documented and sourced:

[W]e have been seeing, here, in Europe, some gruesome acts of vandalism throughout the year 2012 from feminist organizations such as FEMEN and Pussy Riot.

So let’s talk a bit about these FEMEN criminals who, due to the pussy pass, have avoided the jail terms that would have undoubtedly be [sic] applied had it been men who were committing the same deeds they did...

Of course, the fact that they attempted to initiate violence with police [at the 2012 London Olympics] did not actually appear in any English language newspaper, thus the ‘poor little innocent women being victimized by police brutality’ could once again be used. If the protesters were to be naked men around an Olympics venue where there are children, nobody would have questioned the actions of the police forces and placing them on a sex offenders list would have been a foregone conclusion.

But all the aforementioned protests still seem rather innocent to a certain degree.

However, in July 2012, Yana Zhdanova, a FEMEN member, came to the airport when Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, was arriving in Ukraine and ran towards him screaming ‘Get out!’ whilst her naked back contained the following message: “Kill Kirill!"

Yes, it was in English and yes she actually assaulted the Russian Orthodox cleric...

In August, Inna Șevcenko took down, with chainsaw, a wooden cross in the center of Kiev that had been erected in the memory of the people that died during the Stalinist oppression. This took place in front of the former NKVD headquarters.

That’s right, [a] monument erected from private money donated by the survivors of a real oppression, was taken down by an almost-naked feminist, because she felt that the vandals from Pussy Riot had to be set free and thus she is entitled to walk freely with a chainsaw in the center of a European capital city and take down monuments.

700 people were killed in November 1941 in Kiev by Stalin’s regime. That’s only one month out of a long-time regime and only one city. All those people were killed for disliking the predecessor of feminist ideology – Marxism-Leninism. But those people cannot be commemorated properly because the FEMEN movement says so.

Just imagine someone taking down the Washington monument or the monument that’s been placed at ground zero after 9/11. That was the sentimental value of that monument for the Ukrainian people that suffered through real oppression.

The Ukrainian authorities wanted to arrest her but the FEMEN movement organized a blockade and Inna eventually fled Ukraine and moved to France where she opened a ‘training center for activists’ and she actually has the nerve to claim that she is being persecuted by the Ukrainian authorities.

And these violent thugs are being cried over on in the Ukrainian media because they got alienated by their families once they joined the movement. Would anyone from the media even care, let alone be compassionate, if they were men? Again, I sincerely doubt it.

Some might think that calling them ‘violent thugs’ is too much, albeit in my moral compass, someone who uses a chainsaw in the centre of a major city to take down a monument is indeed a violent thug. Allow me translate a statement of Inna Șevcenko in the last article cited above:

I try to shake women in Ukraine and make them socially active. We provoke them, show that women can do it. I generally aim to organize in 2017 a female revolution. Maybe not a matriarchy, but very close to it. Enough with the male sins! [Emphasis added]

Expel her from France, I say. I'm glad I've signed that petition.

Taqiyya Trials in Europe

First published on Raymond Ibrahim site.

By Enza Ferreri



The issue of taqiyya – the religious permission, indeed virtue, of Muslim deception to infidels for the good of Islam – is such a uniquely crucial aspect of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially, like in the West, when the former are a minority and the latter a majority, that there have been at least a couple of trials in Europe revolving around it, one recent and the other current.

In May 2013 there was a legal case in Italy in which a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khalid Chaouki, a Moroccan Muslim immigrant to Italy and now MP, sued another Moroccan immigrant, Souad Sbai, a woman journalist and former Italian MP who had accused him of practicing taqiyya when he was saying that he had renounced the Brotherhood while in fact he still ’shared its goals and ideas of dangerous, extreme Islam’. He lost the case.

In Britain, in the last few days of 2013 Tim Burton, the Radio Officer of the newly-formed Liberty GB, an outspoken counterjihad, pro-Western and Christian civilisation party, got into trouble.

I have to declare an interest in the matter since I am the party’s Press Officer. Liberty GB has some similarities to Holland’s Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, although in no way, having started as recently as March 2013, it’s as yet so popular. We are running in the coming elections for the European Parliament in May.

Tim Burton has been charged by the Police with racially aggravated harassment for a few tweets and is soon due to appear in court.

At this point I must introduce the individual he tweeted about, a prominent albeit colourful Muslim whom Tim called ‘a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist’ on Twitter. He is Fiyaz Mujhal, founder and director of Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks), an organisation that acts like a sort of helpline for the victims of ‘Islamophobia’ and in so doing monitors the entity of what it must consider a grave social problem.

If you are looking for a balanced assessment of the impact of Muslim crime, violence, stealth jihad and terrorism on British society you will not find it on Tell MAMA’s literature or website. But you’ll see plenty of examples of ‘hate’ towards Muslims, a great number of which in the form of films, books, political campaigns and, of course, ‘cyber harassment’, ‘cyber bullying’, ‘cyber abuse’, ‘cyber incitement’, ‘cyber threats’, ‘cyber stalking’, or ‘cyber hate’ – which is what got Tim in a legal jam.

Tell MAMA and the other organisation founded by Mr Mujhal, Faith Matters, had been successful in their demand that the UK Home Office ban Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the country.

The group has a Working Definition of Anti-Muslim Prejudice that includes ‘insults or attacks against Islam’, of which it’s safe to assume well-documented criticisms will be seen as examples. It is also good at crafting new expressions like ‘Anti-Muslim Cultural Racism’, which is Liberty GB’s sin in Tell MAMA’s eyes, as it describes us as ‘guilty of racialising Muslims’. How somebody can achieve such a feat is anyones’s guess.

In its ardour to chastise Liberty GB, Tell MAMA says something which goes beyond matters of opinion and is factually wrong: ’Halal slaughter and meat would also be banned (but no mention of kosher)’. We do object to kosher too and we say it clearly.

What prompted Tim Burton to label Mr Mujhal on Twitter “a mendacious grievance-mongering taqqiyya-artist” and “a lying Muslim scumbag” were some revelations appeared in The Daily Telegraph. In the wake of the beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby in a London street by two jihadists crying “Allahu Akbar” and giving the Quran as their motive in May of last year, Mr Mujhal in June reported

“a wave of attacks, harassment, and hate-filled speech against Muslims … an unprecedented number of incidents”, including “a rise in street harassment of Muslims – unprovoked, opportunistic attacks from strangers as Muslims go about their lives”.

He added: “Over the past week or so, these sorts of hate crimes have noticeably increased in number and, in many instances, become more extreme.

“The scale of the backlash is astounding … there has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities.”

The media, especially the BBC, have accepted the claims without question. A presenter on Radio 4’s influential Today programme stated that attacks on Muslims were now “on a very serious scale”.

Talk of a “massive anti-Muslim backlash” has become routine. And it is that figure issued by Tell Mama – of, to date, 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” since the Woolwich murder – which has formed the basis of nearly all this reporting.

But when journalist Andrew Gilligan investigated a bit further, it turned out that 57 per cent of the 212 reports referred to activity occurring just online, like postings on Twitter and Facebook, a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified and not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.

Contrary to Tell MAMA’s claims of a climate of violence, only 17 of the 212 incidents, 8 per cent, involved the physical targeting of people and there were no attacks on anyone serious enough to require medical treatment.

The organisation has received a total of £375,000 from the UK government. But as a consequence of these revelations and even previous discoveries of discrepancies between its figures and police official figures – showing Tell MAMA’s inflated rates of and increase in anti-Muslim crimes – it had its public funding discontinued.

This hasn’t stopped its activity, though:

Mujhal asserted that tougher sentences were needed to tackle Islamophobic crime, noting that the guidelines by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to monitor social media were “not fit for purpose”.

“They raised the bar of prosecution significantly.

“Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality.

“We also need more robust sentencing. In one case, a pig’s head was left outside a mosque and the perpetrator came away with a community sentence.

Perhaps the lawsuit against Tim Burton is part of this campaign which seems apparently to target in particular social media.

Liberty GB is trying to make taqiyya the keystone of this trial. Given the special position of taqiyya in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially in non-Muslim-majority countries, if we, by making this case public, manage to make the British and Western people understand the meaning and nature of taqiyya, we will have managed to make them understand the whole nature of Islam in relation to us through it.

The Western public has been misled about Islam and believes that the ‘religion of peace’ is fundamentally similar to Christianity in its ethical outlook. Replace God with Allah, Jesus with Muhammad, and you still have the same moral commandments: love your enemies, be benevolent towards non-Muslims, and thou shall not lie or give false testimony. If the authority of a court can establish that taqiyya was indeed practised, Westerners can start to see that lying to them is not only allowed but encouraged by Islam as one of the means of submitting them to it, which is the final goal. As a consequence of this, people in the West may gradually become more and more reluctant to accept everything that Muslims say about Islam and may begin to doubt all the distortions they are currently fed.

One issue that we intend to bring to public attention is this: how can a Muslim’s swearing on the Quran in court be accepted as declaration of the truthfulness of his testimony when the very book he is swearing on gives him divine permission to lie?

Green Taxes Cause Energy Prices Hikes

No politician or mainstream media outlet is saying why shale gas from fracking may not reduce, as it should, consumers' utility bills.

The reason why energy bills in Britain are so high and will continue to soar is largely the ever-increasing cost of that “green energy” imposed to us by the Climate Change Act of 2008, pushed through Parliament by Ed Miliband, then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who recently proposed to halt price hikes made inevitable by his own policies.

Week after week we saw on the panel of Question Time, on BBC1, one or another Labour politician accusing the UK's "big six" (or seven) energy companies of increasing their bills and blaming the coalition government for letting them get away with it.

Nobody can say that the Labour Party is incapable of the most incredible hypocrisy. This is why UK electricity prices are so high:

Tony Blair's Labour government introduced in 2002 the Renewable Obligations Order. This system obliges companies supplying electricity to purchase an annually increasing proportion of their electricity from so-called green or renewable (non-fossil) sources. This means they have to pay inflated prices, which they pass on to their customers through their electricity bills.

Blair announced in May 2002 plans to meet Britain's Kyoto and EU targets, and in March 2003 the government published an Energy White Paper on the UK's future energy strategy. 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]

The same White Paper estimated that meeting the carbon reduction targets would increase household energy bills by up to 15%.

The reason for this is that the renewables are very expensive, and in particular the offshore wind farms on which both the previous and this government are so keen are the most costly of all fuel sources.

As investigative journalist Christopher Booker righty says:

Politicians are complaining about rises in fuel bills that are largely the result of their own actions.

If you exaggeratedly tax companies in the pursuit of a "green energy" policy that follows the diktats of a discredited, if not outright refuted, theory like AGW (anthropogenic global warming), the inevitable result is higher prices for households and, in extreme cases, fuel poverty.

The coalition government is not much better than its socialist predecessor.

A few months ago SSE, one of the UK's six biggest energy companies, increased its prices by a further 8 per cent, and tried to explain that what made that price hike inevitable was the 13 per cent rise in the company's costs, two-thirds of which were due to “green” taxes and the soaring cost of connecting new wind farms to the grid.

While SSE called for a curb on these green levies – such as the crazy “carbon tax”, designed eventually to double the cost of electricity from fossil fuels, which still supply 70 per cent of our needs – the only official response was a fatuous call from our energy minister, Michael Fallon, for consumers to boycott SSE. Mr Fallon was oblivious to the fact that his Government’s policies will soon force all other energy companies to follow suit.

In the meantime, a new brand of criminals have emerged: the "energy thieves", utility clients who tamper with meters to steal their gas and electricity and in the process put the lives of neighbours at risk. Refusing to pay also means that their costs are passed on to honest customers.

This is exactly the scenario described by Milton Friedman as incentives for immoral behaviour brought about by bad laws, of which our Climate Change Act is a perfect example.

Photo of the Romney Marsh Wind Farm, on the Kent/East Sussex border, in England, courtesy of the website Britain Gallery

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Are still Fighting Back against Their Ban: Help Them



The 25 June 2013 is a significant date not only in the history of the counterjihad movement but also in the history of freedom of speech in one of the countries that most contributed to its establishment: Britain.

That is the date on the letter to Robert Spencer announcing the UK Home Secretary Theresa May's decision that he should

be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here is not conducive to the public good...

The Home Secretary notes that you are the founder of the blog Jihad Watch (a site widely criticized for being Islamophobic). You co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, both of which have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups.

So those were the reasons given for Spencer's and fellow founder of American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and SIOA Pamela Geller's ban.

As Robert Spencer put it at the time:

Muhammad al-Arifi, who has advocated Jew-hatred, wife-beating, and jihad violence, entered the U.K. recently with no difficulty. In not allowing us into the country solely because of our true and accurate statements about Islam, the British government is behaving like a de facto Islamic state. The nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead.

Al-Arifi is just one of the many Islamists admitted to Britain, in this case just a few days before Spencer's ban. The interesting thing about him is that he's the author of these words:

Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.

Robert Spencer, according to the Home Office, instead wrote this:

...it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.

The grammatically and logically confused quotation is unlikely to be literal, as anyone who's read Robert's prose will easily realize. Nevertheless, what distinguishes the latter extract from the one immediately above? They both equate Islam with war against infidels, but one - Al-Arifi's - approvingly, and the other - Spencer's - disapprovingly:

[I]t is perfectly acceptable to speak about jihad violence in the UK, as long as you’re for it. If you oppose it, watch out...

This is even more true in view of the fact that the purpose of the two anti-jihad campaigners' visit to Britain was to lay a wreath at a memorial for British soldier Lee Rigby - murdered by two jihadists on a London street on 22 May - on Armed Forces Day, 29 June.

Immediately after the ban, The British Society For Freedom of Speech published the online petition Allow Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak in UK, which has so far collected almost 10,000 signatures, including mine.

On 2nd July, Spencer and Geller fought back with an appeal against their ban and instructed lawyers in the UK.

A couple of weeks ago, two judges decided to uphold the Government’s exclusion on Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from the UK.

But that's not the end of it. A fund has been established to help the lawsuit against the entry ban.

They know that it’s not going to be easy:

The entire British government and media elite is determined to appease Islamic supremacists and discredit and silence the defenders of freedom. We will have to hire a top British legal team that can navigate through all the roadblocks and obstacles that the Home Office puts up.

It’s going to cost us upwards of $25,000.

So, please help them fight the ban: donate via Paypal to americanfreedomdefense@aol.com .