When Tommy Met Mo It Ended in Tears

I’ve watched the BBC documentary When Tommy Met Mo: Leaving the EDL (video above), which was clearly intended to portray Islam as a peaceful, nice and tolerant “religion”, hijacked by some, in short the usual spin, but this time with the prestigious and authoritative backing of a former English Defence League leader.

That Tommy Robinson lent himself to this circus shows what a confused man he is. He has a split personality, at least vis–à–vis Islam. There are times when he appears to understand, at least partly, what Islam is; and then there are times when he has strong doubts about what he has previously thought, and starts talking nonsense.

The fact that he may believe all the things said by Mohammed Ansar and Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation is another indication of how unclear his ideas about Islam are. He wasn’t even able to quote from the Quran in an intelligible way, which would have been the easiest thing in the world and the first thing to do, when the others disputed his words. Of course we don’t know if the BBC cut out the parts when Robinson might have appeared not so gullible: we have to go by what the documentary shows, but I suspect that it must have had Tommy’s final approval.

About paedophilia, all he had to say is that Muhammad, the ideal man, the model of behaviour for all Muslims – none excluded – to follow, was a paedophile himself, which automatically legitimises paedophilia in Islam.

And about reforming Islam and throwing away parts – the nasty, “violent” he called them, parts - of the Quran: you cannot reform or pick and choose between the words of God, and for Muslims the Quran IS the direct word of God, verbatim dictated to Muhammad, unlike the Bible, that was written by men. So, unlike Christianity, Islam is by its very nature fundamentalist and cannot be reformed in principle.

The often-repeated leitmotif of the documentary was “British Islam”, a contradiction in terms no less than “squared circle”.

I’m writing all this not because Tommy or what he does have a supreme importance for me, although he's been a brave bloke and although his actions still have major effects. For example, a friend of mine, who is highly representative of public opinion and who watched the documentary too, now likes Tommy Robinson very much, thinks he’s a nice person, and more than ever hopes that Islam will be reformed and everything in the UK will be hunky-dory with Muslims. Which is the impression the BBC wanted to create: Islam is good and, even in case you doubt it - namely, even if you have eyes and ears –, it can always be reformed. What more do you want?

No, I’m writing this because there is a lesson for us on all this.

The lesson is that we cannot act without having thought first, which is what Tommy omitted to do. He has made such a mess of things: being against Islam – or maybe not -, then being an apologist for Islam, like the historian Tom Holland appearing on the programme, whom I never quite found convincing – and what he said on this broadcast confirms me in my opinion.

And Tommy made such a mess of things because he did not start with the right foot, which would have been having a good, solid and deep understanding of what he was fighting against, beginning with a clarification of the spurious distinction between Islam and Islamism, that he never quite realised to be fabricated. But, in a war, comprehending who your enemy is is necessary but not sufficient. You also have to understand who you are and more importantly what you fight for.

The existence of an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) division in the EDL shows very clearly that he did not grasp what he was fighting for. The Left, even before Islam, is our enemy. The Left is the enabler of Islam in the West. And you don’t fight the Left by joining it. The normalisation of homosexuality - and even more transexuality - is one of the many manifestations of the cultural war victories that Marxism has achieved over the Western, typically Christian, values and principles we stand for.

That’s why I keep stressing the importance of having clear ideas and ideology before anything else.

It doesn’t have to end in a civil war, as somebody gloomily forecasts, just because Tommy Robinson – and probably the EDL – have failed. We can learn from their mistakes and solve this problem politically, as we in the Liberty GB party are trying to do.

Londoners Sign Petition for Female Genital Mutilation

Shocking but revealing.

Leyla Hussein, a Somali woman living in London who was subjected to female genital mutilation when she was seven in Somalia, has tried a macabre experiment to test how far the political correctness of the public in the British capital would go.

She asked shoppers to sign a petition supporting FGM, telling them she wanted to protect her “culture, traditions and rights”.

Ms Hussein astonishingly found that only one person out of 20 refused to sign her petition.

She said to the London Evening Standard:

“I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

...[P]ublic health minister Jane Ellison warned that vulnerable girls were being failed because people do not want to be seen as “culturally insensitive”.

This reminds me a bit of that notorious psychology experiment in which subjects were asked to administer electric shocks to other persons by someone whom they believed to be a scientist. Under test was the willingness of ordinary people, not particularly sadistic or cruel, to go along with the infliction of even severe pain on innocent human beings if the command was imparted by a figure in authority in a white coat if they thought that this could benefit science.

The pain was imaginary, no electric shocks were really given, but the subjects did not know that. Mostly, they obeyed the order to administer progressively stronger electric shocks, and continued even when the presumed victims, whom they could not directly see, were screaming.

Two are the great gods of our world, to whom everything must be sacrificed, as in the ancient pagan rites of human and animal sacrifices: science and political correctness.


Photo by Jonathon Narvey (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

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.