Immigration: UK public was never consulted

It’s so odd that many British politicians, especially those of the Euro-skeptic variety, always go on saying that the UK public has not been consulted regarding Britain’s position in the European Union now that the process of European integration is political and not just economical as it was when the UK held a referendum on the subject in 1975.

It’s odd because no politician ever, at least in the mainstream political parties, has ever uttered a word about another dramatically important issue affecting British people’s lives much more profoundly than the country’s European membership.

I refer to the mass immigration, legal and illegal, of so-called economic migrants as well as political refugees and asylum seekers, genuine and bogus alike, that has inundated the country with a number of people from all over the world so large and so unmanageable that nobody knows exactly what it is.

I said it’s odd but in fact it isn’t. There’s a crucial reason why the decisions about mass immigration have been taken by the various successive governments from the post-war period to now without bothering to find out what the people actually wanted.

Because politicians know extremely well that the vast majority of the British population do not want this large-scale demographic experiment performed on their own skin, as all opinion polls clearly show.

Some Religions Are More Equal Than Others: the Existence of Double Standards

It never ceases to amaze me how on one hand cultural products considered offensive to Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are treated as “hate crimes”. If, God forbid, a book or a film offends Islam (and that is easy enough, because Muslims do get easily offended), on top of being labelled a hate crime it also puts author, director or producers’ lives at risk with a fatwa (in fact, a film about Islam would be even too dangerous to make).

But on the other hand to offend Christianity is “art”, as in the case of Chris Ofili's painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and surrounded by cut-outs from pornographic magazines.

The existence of the much over-used words "anti-semitic" and "islamophobic" obviously shows that certain groups are protected by political correctness, but one group is not.

There have been many excuses put forward for Ofili's work, the most common of which have been:

1)You can attack your own religion.

No, because it is not only your religion, it is not exclusive to yourself. Many other coreligionists may be offended by something that you don't find offensive, and you have to think of its effect on them.

2) Dung is God's creation.

What about pornographic cuts? Last time I checked it was not God that created Playboy or hard core movies.
The question is one of context. It is not the human body or its products at issue here, but the association of a Christian symbol with something which has a repulsive connotation.

3) It makes people think.

Wow! So, without a product of defecation or urination slapped in front of them, people wouldn't be able to think. Whatever the persons who put forward this excuse have faith in they can't have a lot of faith in people's reflective powers.
It's possible to make people think without the "shock, horror!" techniques that someone seems to believe necessary. Incidentally, aren't they the same techniques used by popular tabloids and mags ('gutter press' they are called in England)?

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

People who defend Ofili's work overlook the all-important question of communication.

We use certain words (and discard others) because we know that they convey a certain meaning to other people, that is the recipients of our communication, not to ourselves.

Communication is all about thinking of who is going to receive it and what they will make of it.

Now, art is one of the most important forms of communication.

Whether a painting is a real work of art or is art only in its producer's wishes (and wildest dreams), it doesn't alter the fact that it is a means of communication.

Whatever Ofili thinks, it should have been obvious even to a not exactly gigantic intellect like him that the majority of people who would see the painting considered elephant dung as a symbol of something totally different from Ofili's supposed and alleged original intentions.

By associating it with a symbol of Christianity, Ofili conveyed a clear message.

The message is: profanity.

Let me explain what it means, from the original Greek: it is to pollute and displace one icon with another. Now, trying to interject offensive symbology into a religion's iconography certainly is profanity. Is it profane for the culture involved, Christianity, or not? Since so many Christians protested vehemently about it, one could with certainty infer that they found it profane.

The most interesting things I read on that work by Ofili are this:

"There is contempt of the past, a senseless denial of any possibility of enduring meaning, in desecration art. Desecration art functions like the parasite; it destroys the heritage from which it draws its meaning. Ofili's piece illustrates this. The icon gives the piece meaning, yet the icon is what the piece seeks to destroy. Destroy the meaning of the icon and the meaning of the piece is destroyed with it like the parasite that dies with its host. The artist is vandal and the museum the gate to this cultural barbarism."

And this:

"Or perhaps the artist, not unlike a dirtyminded little adolescent, sought the most offensive image his little brain could contrive in order to aquire a name and hopefully wealth. Because that is what art today is really about, money. It is no different from pop culture, which is what Warhol went to all the trouble to point out."

And the central issue at stake here is that no works of "art" have done the same thorough job at desecrating fundamental symbols of religions other than Christianity.

Conversely, every time a Christian symbol is depicted in "art" now is surrounded by or associated with excreta, urine, vaginas, condoms, breasts, panties, coat hangers for abortion, phallic pipes, simulated sex acts and the like.

"Violence" Has a Different Definition for Muslims

Below is another post, from my discontinued blog of a few years ago, which can still provide food for thought today. The article, dated 19 September 2006, was prompted by and referring to a then recent event, that of Pope Benedict XVI quoting from the erudite 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and the violent reactions from Muslims it elicited. Since it's not in the article, this is what the Holy Father said in the lecture he gave at the University of Regensburg in Germany:

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that [the Quran] surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

After the South American Pope Francis' election, Benedict XVI sounds refreshingly well acquainted with Islam and its development from weak - and therefore forced to be "peaceful" - to strong and aggressive.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature.

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

To state that Muslims, by reacting with anger, attempts at intimidation and with both threats and acts of violence to the claim that Islam is violent (regardless of the question whether this was what the Holy Father simply quoted), are saying with their own actions what has been claimed just with words is even too obvious.

What I think is showing here is a semantic gulf between the West and Islam.

I cannot believe that all Muslims are so stupid (it’s possible, but statistically improbable) not to realize that for someone to say: “I’m not violent, and I’ll kill you if you say that” is a situation worth of a comedy sketch.

What I think is that when we Westerners say “violence” or “violent” we mean something entirely different from what Muslims intend by the same words.

The Western definition of those words, for reasons of culture, history and mentality, is not the Muslim definition of them. They have a negative connotation in both worlds, but they are applied to different behaviours and actions.

For example, for us in the West the act of killing someone who has offended Mohammed, Islam, the Koran or anything sacred to Muslims is an act of unqualified violence. For Muslims, it simply is not: it is indeed an act even laudable and in some circumstances legal and required (e.g. the fatwa proclaiming the death sentence for Salman Rushdie).

I personally am convinced that the Pope believes in the words he quoted from the erudite 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus. He did not retract them. The reason for his expressing regret at the way they had been taken was mainly, in my opinion, to protect the unfortunate people who are already persecuted on a routine basis and prevent them from being persecuted even more: I refer, of course, to the Christians living in Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, where the burning of churches is a normal occurrence, only made worse by the jihad against the Holy Father.

And, to mix the sacred with the profane, does anybody remember what the Muslim Zidane did when he headbutted the Italian Materazzi in the football World Cup final last July? He blamed Materazzi for having provoked him, stubbornly refused to apologize to him and, in the politically correct environment of the FIFA and the liberal media, he almost got away with that lame excuse. It looks like blaming others for one’s own violence and irrational behaviour is definitely a Muslim thing.


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

What Eid Teaches Moderate Muslims and Their Kids

Two days ago 15 October - the date changes every year - was the wonderful Islamic festival of Eid-ul-Adha, celebrated by Muslims worldwide by sacrificing fully conscious animals.

Of course, considering that this is a multi-million-animal slaughter - on Eid, 7.5 million animals are sacrificed every year in Pakistan alone -, by the theory of probability some incident or another is bound to happen.

Like this in Gaza, where some poor, oppressed (sob) Palestinians showed their great kindness of heart - why, they would never hurt an Israeli, promise - when, not content with simply butchering the animals, started torturing them and were attacked and wounded by the cattle.

A few reports are coming from Italy, where Muslims are - alas, oops I meant Insha'Allah - rapidly multiplying. Il Giornale di Vicenza, a local paper in the region of Venice, says about the halal slaughter on Eid:

The ceremony takes place in front of the family, with the children in the front row: it is not considered a macabre spectacle because Muslims witness it from an early age and it's part of the religious tradition.

But a grandad disagreed. An Italian man, Salvatore Cipolletta, whose daughter Cristina married young Yemeni Haidar Rohay Ahmed Al-Tawil, shot dead his son-in-law after seeing him butcher a lamb on the family's dinner table under his own grandchildren's eyes.

While in Italy the number of marriages, and in particular church weddings, has reached historic lows, mixed marriages between Italians and immigrants have steadily increased.

These, however, often don't seem to lead to happy families.

The climate of violence that surrounds Islam in so many of its doctrines, characteristics and rituals can only generate more, interminable violence in an endless cycle.

During a festive family celebration having, rather than a visit to a theme park or a trip to the cinema, an animal slaughter show without the benefit of pre-stunning as entertainment and education for the children is likely to produce adults who will not abhor blood and savagery but will find them normal: which may be what the original intention behind these rituals actually was.


Hat tip to Vale Ramone.

Photo by TheAnimalDay.org (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

Italy's Muslim Immigrants Family Violence

In Italy the number of marriages, especially in church, has reached historic lows, but on the other hand mixed marriages between Italians and immigrants are on the rise and have been for several years.

What's the result? Not always family bliss. As could have been easily predicted, cultural and religious differences are more important than multiculturalism leads people to believe.

And within purely immigrant Muslim families the problems are the same.

From Il Giornale di Vicenza, a local paper in the Venice region:

The wife who kills her husband's mistress because she does not comply with the dictates of the Koran; the husband who kills an acquaintance who offended his wife by calling her a prostitute, again in defiance of Muslim laws. The family dramas triggered by religious causes are unfortunately not uncommon in the Vicenza area.

Then there are the nephew tortured because he doesn't go to the mosque, the wife battered for not wearing the burqa, the little Indian girl beaten up due to her choice of an Italian boyfriend.

If the first hypotheses about the Via Todeschini crime were confirmed, namely a quarrel resulted in tragedy over the differences on the sacrifice of a lamb, the death of the young Yemeni would be part of the long trail of blood shed in the Province of Vicenza for reasons related to beliefs, rituals and conflicts of a religious nature.

If the most recent case is that of a young 14-year-old African from Arzignano, whose uncle cut off his ear lobe as punishment because the boy did not want to regularly frequent the mosque, the most resounding, followed by the whole of Italy, dates back to 4 November 1999.

That evening, in the butcher shop near the Multicenter, in the city, the Moroccan citizen Saida Tawil, 38, killed with 32 stab wounds her compatriot Mina Etamraoui. The victim, who was the lover of her husband, did not want to accept the Koranic law of concubinage. An honour killing paid with "only" 6 years in prison because she was granted, thanks to her lawyers Paolo Mele senior and Caterina Evangelisti, the extenuating circumstance of provocation.

The two women were in love with a man, the murderer's husband, who loved both and could not decide. The victim had converted to Western customs; and although the killer had recognized the concubine, as the Koran rules, she did not accept that she didn't respect the laws of the Koran by wearing Western clothes and drinking beer.

For these religious reasons she murdered her and injured her own husband.

The previous year, in Bassano, another Moroccan killed the man who had dared call his wife a prostitute; in this case as well, the murderer acted for religious motives, because that type of insult is considered very serious by the Koran.

A case that received much coverage is that of an Asian immigrant living in the Chiampo valley, who wanted to prevent his daughter from going out with an Italian boy. For him this was unacceptable, so he locked her in the house and beat her up. Similar is the case of the Arzignano husband who mistreated his wife for not wearing a burqa as his religion dictates, and who was reported and risked being arrested.

Another phenomenon, less serious, is represented by the customs of the Sikh religious community, which is very strong in all Alto Vicentino and normally meets in Castelgomberto. [The problems here are] The turban, which prevents them from wearing helmets when riding a motorbike, and even more the knife they carry around as an object of worship (like the cross for a Christian) and is frequently seized by the police, with criminal charges, as a posssible weapon.

Hat tip to Vale Ramone.

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).