Jewish Commenter Defends Neo-Paganism and Insults Christianity

Someone whom it is unChristian and uncharitable but realistic to call foolish (the fact that his Facebook page bears the appellative of Anarchophobopath under his name should immediately give some indication of his IQ), paradoxically named Paul Wiseman, has left a comment to a recent post to my Facebook page Save the West on a promise that Putin made some time ago to protect Christians from persecution worldwide.

I have now deleted his comment which doesn't do anything to my page except corrupting it, but I'll paste it here to analyse it. He wrote:

Christianity is a Roman reworking of some sand demon kult.
Most 'Christians' don't even know what that book of dribble even says.

Quote from Jesus (Joshua - the most common name of the day),"Bring those who do not recognize me as messiah to me and kill them" that's in the book of John. I could go on.
We have our own much more ancient and respectable traditions that require men be men. Fuck all sand demon kults.

YHWH - mountain god of storms and war. Kills more than the so called bad guy of the book. Al Lah = a Moon God - to me they are all sand demons. They have no place being here in the heartlands of the Celto-Germanics/Nordics. The west died when Rome/Catholics tried to destroy our real heritage.

Rabid anti-Christians don't have any fear of writing the greatest absurdities in the vilest tone because they know that Christians are too polite and other people are in general too ignorant of Christianity to reply. Unfortunately Facebook is teeming with these types.

A few telltale signs

Let's start with the wrong quotation, which he says is from "the book of John". There is no book of John. There is the Gospel According to John (or the Gospel of John).

His usage is reminiscent of the Old Testament, which does have "Books of..." followed by a name. Another element that gives away his probable Jewish background, apart from the surname Wiseman, is when he says "Jesus (Joshua - the most common name of the day)".

Joshua is the Hebrew name of Jesus (or more precisely the Hebrew name is Yeshua, a common alternative form of Yehoshuah, and its English spelling is Joshua). The name Jesus is from the Latin Iesus and ultimately from the Greek Iēsous.

Even more damning is the reference to YHWH, for Jews the name by excellence, the proper, holiest name of God.

After Jesus, Judaism has become Talmudic Judaism, venomously anti-Christian. Today's Jews are generally either Talmudic or atheist: both groups are anti-Christian, although obviously there are always individual exceptions.

The meaning of "slay them before me"

The alleged quotation "Bring those who do not recognize me as messiah to me and kill them" is not in John or anywhere else in the Bible.

He may refer to Luke 19:27, which has been quoted many times by types who, like Mr Wiseman, are in search of cheap shots against Christianity.

Unfortunately for them, who may be accustomed to an age of information in sound bites and of bite-sized learning, we need to read more than a handful of words to understand the meaning of this passage.

Crude misunderstandings are what happens when someone who knows nothing or very little about Christianity takes a handful of words from Scripture and thinks he's understood the whole Christian theology.

Interestingly, the same verse is also quoted by Muslims who try (in vain) to establish a moral equivalence between their religion, Islam, and Christianity. But it's totally evident - in this extract as well - that Jesus, unlike Allah and his prophet Muhammad, are not inciting men to kill.

Here is the text of Luke 19:11-27, King James Version:

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

These, the "incriminated" words from verse 27 are indeed spoken by Jesus, but in a parable. We see immediately that they are not a command that he himself gave, but the nobleman of the parable.

Parables are symbolic. There is a meaning to this as to all Jesus' parables, but it's not literal.

The man who becomes king is Christ. His citizens who hate him are the Jews who rejected him. His servants are those who follow him and from him receive the power, that is the glory of God. The pounds are, as the talents in Matthew, the gifts we have received from God through Christ. Christ wants us to let our gifts bear fruits, not hide them. The reward for those who gained from their pounds is to share in the glory of God, for those who didn't is to be deprived of it.

The very forceful expression "slay them before me" means the damnation that these men brought upon themselves by choosing to reject God and therefore the possibility of salvation.

It's important to understand the significance. Jesus is talking about the future of those who have voluntarily rejected him as Lord and who trample on the gift of salvation that he still today offers to every man. That gift cost him the death on the cross; he, innocent who died for the guilty, has accepted to bear our condemnation. What would be left for a murderer who persistently refused to be pardoned, if not the right judgment for his crimes?

Here then Jesus solemnly warns about them: "bring them here", so that they can see the glory of Christ and the joy that they have despised, hated and persecuted, preferring to be "god" of themselves. "Bring them here," so that they realise whom they insulted and at whom they shook their fists - at the one who gave them life, and who offered them, despite their profanities, his love and the free gift of salvation until the last day of their lives.

The Saviour they rejected, who sacrificed himself for them on the cross, will then be their Judge and will not be able to intercede for them any more; having spurned grace, they will get what they wanted: the path they have chosen, that of destruction and contempt, will bear its fruit.

A world without justice

People often expect God to be simply an entity that dishes out all the things we desire and none of those we do not desire: after all, isn't he omnipotent? Why can't he make us all happy? He can, but not in the way we have devised for ourselves.

If somebody expects to be able to do whatever he wishes with his life, follow every desire, urge and impulse regardless of the consequences, and never have to be punished for it, then he is not a Christian.

We dislike Divine judgement and punishemnt, and may reject God for this. But think about it for a moment: when we see other people get away with something wrong they have committed, unpunished, we don't like it, do we? We don't deem that a world without justice would be an ideal, or even good, world.

We also don't appreciate the consequences for society of widespread disobedience to God's commandments: we abhor, for instance, the dramatic increase in crime due to the disintegration of the family.

A warning for White Nationalist "Neo-Pagans"

What should make those who identify themselves as White Nationalists reflect is how similar the utterances of this Jewish commenter are to their own defences of paganism and rejection of Christianity, with almost verbatim repetition: "We have our own much more ancient and respectable traditions that require men be men. Fuck all sand demon kults." Or even more: "They have no place being here in the heartlands of the Celto-Germanics/Nordics. The west died when Rome/Catholics tried to destroy our real heritage."

The latter assertion is so moronically ignorant that I sincerely hope I don't need to explain that it is the diametrically opposite of historical truth: the West was born out of Greece and Rome on one hand and Christianity on the other. Even the briefest look at any historical account (a book if its' not too much to ask, a pamphlet, a flyer, a TV show, a video, a computer game) should show Mr Wiseman and his peers that this is the case.

Our Jewish friend, in his agglomeration "Rome/Catholics" as if classical Rome and the Catholic Church were the same thing - probably in his mind he sees them as non-Nordic and that's sufficient reason to lump them together -, makes the umpteenth mistake of a very long, dense series of errors in a short writing.

Whether he believes this nonsense or just rehashed it from the many pagan sources - many of which belong to the White advocacy's movement - that inhabit the internet these days is irrelevant. He must have realised that such drivel is "good for the Jews". Once again the Jews score another point against us.

For anti-White Jews, it's much better if Whites are neo-pagan than Christian: this is easily confirmed by Jewish-owned Hollywood's practice of churning out a plethora of anti-Christian movies, but no anti-pagan ones.


"Radical Faeries 2010 London Pride" by Fæ - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Only White Christians Abolished Slavery

What is unique about Western nations is not that they practised slavery, but that they abolished it.

Slavery was practised by all peoples of all continents of all ages, and in some places, particularly in the Islamic world, still is.

But only Whites, spurred and led by Christians in their midst, abolished it.

I'm reading the book Conquests And Cultures: An International History (Amazon USA) , (Amazon UK) by Thomas Sowell, who, despite being a neoconservative, is a reasonable person and good historian. The fact that he's African American doesn't prevent him from describing the fight against slavery as a conquest of White Christians, especially the British.

His being neocon, his currently being the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, and the various prizes he won from Jewish-related outfits - from the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute, to the Sidney Hook Award from the National Association of Scholars - may be what stops him from analysing the historical importance of Jewish role in slavery.

Nevertheless, his book is to be recommended, for describing in detail many circumstances which are too often overlooked. White slave traders were not involved in the capture of black slaves, with all the cruelty and violence it involved, because they would not survive the diseases they would encounter in the African interior.

The capture was performed by Africans themselves, often of other tribes, and by Muslims for their own trade. The African enslavers then would sell their human merchandise to Western ships on the coast.

The Muslim slave traders would lead their captives, mostly young women to be sold to the harems of the Middle East, across a journey on foot across the Sahara desert, which would last for months. The suffering was enormous and the casualty number astronomical. Skeletons were aligned along the sand
 dunes. A Western observer witnessed this scene, then recounted in a book. A young mother couldn't carry both her infant and her luggage. A slave merchant took the baby from her hands and smashed his head against a rock.

When Britain abolished slavery at home and in the British Empire, its example was soon followed by other European countries.

But Britain encountered a fierce resistance from both Africans and Middle Eastern Muslims, who saw no reason to renounce a lucrative trade, not accepting the moral motives that had made European Christians give up this enormous source of profit.

Britain had to engage in violent conflicts and wars in order to impose the abolition of slavery on African and Asian peoples and enforce it.

The British navy would scour the seas and oceans of the world to intercept any ship carrying slaves and seize their human cargo.

In this way other countries were obliged to stop their slave trade. The last country to abolish slavery in the Western Hemisphere was Brazil. When a Brazilian vessel saw a British ship, it quickly threw its slaves overboard in order not to be found out.

A reasonable account of the true(r) story of slavery can be found here, although the author seems to have Leftist tendencies.

Irish Vote to Legalise Homomarriage

What's going on in Ireland?

Today a national referendum is held in the Republic of Ireland to legalise same-sex marriage.

Opinion polls are indicating that a Yes vote to approve that legalisation will win by a margin of as much as 2-to-1.

A petition has been launched by Citizengo. It says that “this push for same-sex marriage in Ireland has not at all been a ‘home-grown’ phenomenon, but, rather, a carefully-orchestrated and massively well-funded assault on the natural family, coming from private American funding”.

Foreign meddling in and funding of Irish politics is what is going on here.

Mercatornet reports: "A charity founded by Irish-American businessman Chuck Feeney, Atlantic Philanthropies, cheerfully acknowledges that it has poured about US$28 million over the past 13 years into strategic LGBT campaigns in Ireland."

The petition site adds:

With respect to impact on social issues, Atlantic Philanthropies certainly are not shy about reporting on what they have done. In their report, entitled, "Catalysing LGBT Equality and Visibility in Ireland," Atlantic Philanthropies details its funding, and gives a breakdown of how their money has been able to influence Irish social and political life.

In the report's synopsis page, (http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/learning/report-catalysing-lgbt-equality-and-visibility-ireland), the author reviews some "accomplishments" of Atlantic's grantees, including:

* Passage of a landmark 2010 civil partnership law

* Secured public referendum on civil marriage, which is scheduled for 2015 [The referendum which is about to take place!]

and

* Government creation of a Gender Recognition Advisory Group, the role of which is make recommendations on how to proceed toward legal frameworks for gender recognition for transgender people.

But that's not all. Apparently one of the reasons why support for homomarriage and "gay rights" has increased in Ireland in the last few decades is the decline of the Catholic Church's influence due to the so-called "child abuse scandals".

So many things need to be said here.

First of all, the Catholic Church has had a much lower - yes, you read well, much lower - rate of child sex abuse than Protestant and Jewish institutions, and even lower than non-religious, secular ones. These are the well-known results of published, scholarly research.

The false image, opposite to what is the reality, has only been created and impressed in the public mind by the enormous coverage that the media, predominantly Leftist, anti-Christian and Jewish, have given to this topic, while neglecting widespread paedophilia abuses in other environments - although lately these have been impossible to suppress altogether any longer.

The power of mass media in our day and age is such that they can create imaginary worlds and make people believe in them. If mainstream media now started saying that the earth is flat, and Hollywood mass-produced hundreds of 2-hour-long films distributed all over the globe with images of a flat earth in them, in, say, 20 years a majority of people would think that the earth is flat.

Second, the abuses that did occur in the Catholic Church were the result of its "liberalisation", its new openness to the modern world and its compromises with non-Catholic, nay anti-Catholic and anti-Christian ideas that followed Vatican II in 1965.

The priests involved in the scandals were not paedophiles, their victims were not children but adolescent boys, the kind of sexual partners generally preferred by homosexual men.

The "openness" to accept homosexuals in the clergy was one of the consequences of the Church's new liberalism. In the past this would not have generally been allowed, but the new idea was that of helping these homosexual men by offering them an opportunity to overcome their pathological urges. In reality, very likely these "gays" were just trying to find access to teenager boys.

They were not real priests, but they were very real homosexuals.

The most repugnant thing is that the media and commentators were just castigating the Church for surrendering to the false and immoral dogmas of "liberals" like themselves.

Since those scandals erupted, the Catholic Church has stopped accepting homosexuals as priests - the same policy that the Boy Scouts were trying to adopt for their members and leaders -, and it is now even more than before by far the safest possible environment for children and young people.

Incidentally, several years ago American lesbian author Tammy Bruce was explaining in her books how it would have been wise for both the Church and the Boy Scouts not to accept homosexual men, to protect the kids.

Of course, part of Vatican II was the encyclical Nostra Aetate, which changed into its opposite the cautious attitude of the Church towards the Jews who, since then, have infiltrated its hierarchies even at the highest levels, furthering agendas which are contrary to the teachings of the Church - of Christianity really, which the Talmudic Judaism that developed after Jesus hates with a vengeance.

We are witnessing the results.


References

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/the-fairest-referendum-money-can-buy/16178

http://citizengo.org/en/23113-atlantic-philanthropies-stop-meddling-irish-politics?sid=MTc0MjU4MjcwMDE5MTg4

http://www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/lies-about-catholic-church-abuse-scandal.html

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/07/the-role-of-jewish-converts-to-catholicism-in-changing-traditional-catholic-teachings-on-jews/

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/06/crypto-judaism-in-the-catholic-church/

The Jewish and Muslim Questions

Published in The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


I ended my last article in The Occidental Observer, which focused on the current campaign against the “Jewification of Britain” and on some similarities between Islam and Judaism as well as between Muslim and Jewish communities living in the West, by saying that nevertheless the Jewish and Muslim questions have very different repercussions for Whites, and this topic has been regularly and repeatedly discussed.

How in my opinion these two questions should be treated is the subject of this article.

I have observed a regular divergence of opinion on it. There is a spectrum of positions, at one extreme end of which are those who think that Muslims are the real and sole problem, while at the other extreme end are those who believe that Muslims are innocent and only used as scapegoats.

In my view neither claim is entirely right or entirely wrong.

Muslims are a real problem, although they have been scapegoated.

Islam is at war with the West, it’s always been, there’s no denying it. Islam indeed is at war with the rest of the world.

Islam divides the world into two parts: Dar al-Islam (which in Arabic means "house/abode of Islam", also called Dar as-Salam, "house/abode of Peace"); and Dar al-Harb (in Arabic "house of war", also referred to as Dar al-Garb, "house of the West" in later Ottoman sources), which is applied to the whole part of the globe where Islam has not yet triumphed and Islamic law is not in force.

The word “Islam” means “submission”.

The language is clear, the doctrine behind it even clearer: where Islamic rule has been imposed - through whatever means, but bear in mind that practically every single population and nation in the world that is Muslim now has become so through initial military conquest and subjugation - there is peace; where Islam has not yet been imposed there will be war.

Islam is at war with us, whether we like it or not.

Furthermore, even a cursory glance at the violent history of Islam, characterised by wars of conquest and conflicts with its non-Muslim neighbours, will show that this doctrine has been constantly put into practice. Look at a map of the world and you’ll see that the borders around the Islamic part of it are in a state of continuous hostility and warfare with its neighbouring infidels.

As James Murray describes:

My Spanish ancestors fought for 700 years to free Spain of Muslim (and Jewish) rule. In that struggle, the first great Holocaust in history, the mass murder of Mozarabs (Spanish Catholics culturally assimilated by Islam) in Spain was undertaken by Muslims: One third of the Spanish nation was exterminated. (In the last thousand years, only the Qing extermination of the Dzhugarians was more complete.) The reconquest of Spain for Christendom secured it for half a millennium, a period of security that has ended with the collapse of Christendom and the triumph of the ideology of Cultural Marxism known as Multiculturalism, everywhere in the West.

So, to talk about Muslims as just innocent victims of Jewish power and nothing else doesn’t hold water, is not supported by empirical evidence.

On the other hand, Islam, although it has the potential of being extremely violent and dangerous for non-Muslims (and for Muslims too), was sleeping before the last few decades of the 20th century, undergoing a relatively peaceful period in its history; many parts of the Islamic world had even become relatively moderate and more secular – which, in the case of Islam, means less intransigent and aggressive.

A major event and a major process have shaken Islam and awakened it from its slumber. The event is the birth of the state of Israel, which was the result of violence and dispossession against Palestinian Muslims as well as (often forgotten) Christians. The process is the series of wars, invasions and aggressions against Muslim countries that has followed America’s declaration of “War on Terror” after 9/11, and which we have every reason to believe were only fought in the interest of Israel, living a precarious life surrounded by enemies and people with a justified grievance towards it.

To all this we have to add the mass immigration from the Third World to the West, that has been populating Europe with Muslims from Asia and Africa in vast, unprecedented numbers, which paradoxically, while generously offering them opportunities they previously couldn’t even have dreamt of, has also ungratefully “radicalised” them, due (among other reasons) to the sheer contact with the decadent, degenerate West which Muslim culture has always despised.

Unwanted immigration, more correctly called “invasion”, has in this way imported the Muslim problem – which could have remained confined to the Islamic parts of the world with their unfortunate, innocent Christian victims living in those hellholes - to Western shores, therefore making it impossible for Whites not to deal with it.

All this doesn’t alter the fact that Israel and Jewish interests have often made use of red flag strategies to make Western powers wrongly believe that Muslims were guilty of acts of aggression or terror orchestrated by themselves to scapegoat Muslims, of which 9/11 has all the appearances of being the biggest.

But here we come to another problem. Europe’s Muslim immigrants are sometimes described as a powerless, disenfranchised, non-privileged minority, and attacking such dispossessed people, for example through the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, is claimed to be really the pits, the lowest limit of moral behaviour. Typically, people who say this don’t utter a word about the “disenfranchised” Christians of Western Europe, odiously vilified and venomously offended by the same little pornographic rag with a Jewish bent.

The reality is that Europe’s Muslim minority is not powerless, it has protectors and supporters in high places: you could ask the survivors among the thousands and thousands of British White girls who have been abused, raped and even murdered in the last 20 years, because these crimes have been overlooked by police, social services, media and politicians (except the BNP’s Nick Griffin, one of the first to raise the alarm but ignored because he’s “racist”). The perpetrators were let off the hook exactly owing to the fact that they were Muslim paedophile rings and nobody in the UK wants to be called “Islamophobic”. Have we all forgotten the power of victimhood in our societies?

And a “disenfranchised minority” that is prepared to kill for a series of cartoons? Wouldn’t that be a murderous minority, rather?

You have to consider the things that Muslims want to do to our countries and our people, and one of them is to silence us – another similarity they have with the Jewish lobby. Muslims in Europe – where they have much more power than in America – don’t want to stop only Muhammad cartoons; they want to stop any rational discussion and criticism of Islam, impose their dress code in every circumstance, make polygamy part of the law, force halal meat as well as many other aspects of sharia law, and much more. They are an aggressive, bullying, uncompromising minority. Many of Europe’s Muslims – especially women - don’t even learn the language of the country they live in.

Christian and other non-Muslim children are regularly forced to eat halal meat at school; but, if some pork is found in the meal of a Muslim pupil, the dinner lady responsible is immediately sacked, even if it was just a mistake on her part. Is this a powerless minority?

A clear divide is between North American and European Whites, as the two groups experience a different situation vis-à-vis these non-Whites and non-Christians: in the US Muslims are not numerous or very influential while Jews hold an enormous power, whereas in Western Europe something close to the reverse is true, with Muslims’ numbers high and increasing and their power growing, while Jewish power (although strong) is less and less visible than in America.

I disagree with the position of those who say that to criticise Islam and Muslims is inappropriate because it increases support for Jews and their wars.

You cannot lie to the people about the nature of Islam and its threat just because it could theoretically benefit the Jewish and Israel lobbies. Our task is to make people aware of both menaces from two hostile groups. I also suspect that some people who take the above position are not aware of what Islam really is and their view is not based on Islam’s objective reality as much as on the way they see it as a force opposing Jews.

Even if we decided to ally ourselves with Muslims, we should be well aware of who our allies are, not blind to it.

I have even read comments that postulate a similarity between Christianity and Islam, which undoubtedly reveal profound ignorance of one, the other or both, as they stand for diametrically opposite views of everything important, from human nature to ethical goals, from concepts of freedom to what salvation means.

You can see the enormous differences between these two religions from the results they’ve produced. It is no coincidence that only the part of the world that became Christian has made gigantic progress when compared to the rest of the globe, including the nations populated by races with higher average IQs.

In addition, we Whites of different continents are in this together, should form an alliance and find a common ground. Americans would also be wise to see the Muslim danger in Europe as a sign of things probably to come for them too, a warning for their own future.

There is already in Western countries - especially in Europe - a widespread dislike for Islam. It may not be mainstream, but it involves significant numbers of people.

What is true is that, when problems associated with mass immigration and different, conflictual ethnic communities (in the UK for instance) are discussed, Jews are hardly ever mentioned - while Muslims loom very large -, under the common assumption that Jews are not really an ethnic group and that they are undistinguishable from native Whites.

While in Europe there is a growing awareness that Muslims mean trouble, that they don't belong in Western or indeed any modern society, and even that they are bound, due to the supremacism in-built in their doctrine, to be in constant conflict with any other group they happen to live with, a substantial - if not overwhelming - majority of British and European natives in general consider Jews as not different from themselves, part of the social fabric of their continent, devoid of any really different, even less conflicting, interest from the rest of the community. In short: not alien, not foreign, not ghettoised, not hostile, not dangerous.

In fact this impression is mistaken even at a superficial level: ultra-Orthodox Jews like the Hasidim can cause problems for the community they live in, described in my previous article. Besides, over 1 in 10 of Jews living in Britain is one of them and they have large average families of 6-7 children, thus representing the future Jewry of Europe.

The overcrowding created by them puts them in conflict with all other local residents, due to building against planning regulations. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, like Muslims and other Third World immigrants, are also overrepresented among welfare claimants.

However, since Jews in Europe, also due to their small number, cannot produce the problems caused in certain areas by the ever-multiplying, generally indigent and uneducated Muslims, they constitute a challenge that goes largely unrecognised.

Anyone with eyes, ears and a modicum of brain can see the Muslim threat. Granted, sometimes - as possibly in the case of 9/11 – the threat is not genuine and Muslims are the designated scapegoat. But other times it is.

But to be able to spot the way in which Jewish organisations and intellectual movements have managed to transform our civilisation, culture, consciousness, way of thinking, laws and institutions to the point of devastating them and turning them upside down to suit their own community's perceived needs, to discern all that requires much more acumen, power of observation, ability to see links and connect the dots, capability for independent thinking, and then work and research, not to mention courage.

In a way, to see Islam as an enemy is the direct result of what we've been led to believe.

Make no mistake, though. It is an enemy, although innocent on particular occasions.

That's why, if we could show the public that behind 9/11 there was someone very different from Al-Qaeda, many other pieces of the puzzle would start falling into place for many people.

The reason why in Britain the so-called counterjihad movement, whose main force has been the English Defence League (EDL), has achieved practically nothing, despite having had a certain following, is twofold.

The first element is that it doesn't have long-term goals, a vision. It's not enough to be against something, you need a propositive solution. And in my view Christianity is the answer.

The second aspect is that the West's Muslim presence and Islamisation are only the last link of a long chain, the most visible symptom of an underlying, profound disease. What the EDL has not understood is this disease, and how it is interrelated to the Jewish question which I briefly summed up above, and which is at the root of all the current problems.

UK Election Revolution: Labour Loss, UKIP, SNP

Last week's election for the UK Parliament was overall positive.

At least we've avoided another Labour government, which was an impending threat.

Before the election the then Labour party leader Ed Miliband had said that he wanted to be Britain’s first Jewish Prime Minister.

As so many good Jews, Ed’s is a family of good radical Leftists. His late father Ralph Miliband was a self-proclaimed Marxist who had devoted his life to the communist revolution.

This was the first UK general election in which all three candidates for the Prime Minister’s post had various degrees of Jewish ancestry.

The incumbent, David Cameron, proudly told the Israeli Parliament about his Jewish roots.

Nick Clegg is a cousin of Michael Ignatieff, the Jewish leader of the Canadian Liberal Party.

But only Miliband is fully ethnically Jewish and his family has deep roots in Britain’s Marxist world. There is some speculation that Ed Miliband’s father Ralph might have been a KGB stooge; apparently he seemed to like the company of KGB agents. Francis Carr Begbie relates:

There is no question that in the sixties, intellectual Ralph Miliband moved in the same circles as many Marxist Jews of Russian background. There is equally no question that Britain’s security services were deeply concerned because of their KGB links, especially about a Russian attache called “Lev”, a frequent visitor to the Miliband Hampstead home who was not slow to throw money and gifts around when it came to getting what he wanted. David Horowitz remembers a ham-fisted attempt to recruit him in the sixties.

In the end this is all history and is overshadowed by one simple salient fact — the Friends of Israel lobby groups are the most powerful in British politics and eighty per cent of Conservative MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel.

He also says:

Was Ed Miliband’s Trotskyist grandfather involved in the liquidation of White Russians who were opposed to communism? This intriguing question was asked by one of Vladimir Putin’s closest advisors eight years ago and has never been satisfactorily answered. Kremlin insider Geb Pavlovsky even said that Ed Miliband may have “inherited” his hatred of Russia from his Polish-born grandfather Samuel.

The Milibands have always played down their family’s Bolshevik past.

Going back to the election results, two big factors of revolutionary change have appeared in good, old and stale British politics, which for a long time had remained more or less the invariable system of the same two parties alternating in power, just slightly and superficially touched by the third presence of the useless Liberal Democrats.

The first factor is the Scottish factor, which has produced the meteoric rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP).

The second is the UK Independence Party earthquake, created by the enormous impact of unlimited immigration and multiculturalism on British society.

That's where Labour got it wrong. Ed Miliband's admission of his party's guilt for the hugely irresponsible open-door immigration policies of the Blair era and his opposite attitude of refusing to admit that Labour had overspent have paradoxically produced on the public the same negative, alienating effect.

For admitting to a mistake that cannot be reversed - unrestricted immigration and the creation of a multiculturalism that are invading, flooding, overwhelming and destroying traditional British society - has no redeeming feature.

This recognition merely served to remind and confirm to people who was to blame for the tragic predicament the British Whites find themselves in.

But nobody really believes that Third World invasion and its accompanying multiculturalism can be rolled back in any foreseeable future, or that migration numbers can be kept to an acceptable, nay tolerable, limit.

So, the Labour leader's admission to this fault of his party in this area not only didn't help him to get votes in recognition of his honesty and as a sign of change of policy, but also it brought home more forcefully than ever that Labour was to blame - and therefore to punish - for this horrendous multiculti mess that is every day making British cities increasingly closer to the hellholes of Pakistan and Somalia, Bangladesh and Nigeria.

On the other hand, the previous Labour government's vast overspending of taxpayers' money, that created a national debt of trillions of pounds and almost bankrupted the country, is a disaster about which something can be done: it can be reversed and the economy can be improved, as the Coalition government showed.

So, in this respect an admission of guilt would have been beneficial to Labour, as a sign of the party's having learned its lesson from its own past mistakes and as a positive predictor of not repeating them in the future.

But that admission never came.

All this is an ominous sign of how Miliband awfully and completely misread the British public and could have never been Prime Minister.

Even monstrous politicians like Tony Blair must be able to be on the same wavelength as the people, must somehow understand them.

The ghost of the Unions, with the spectre of a repeat of the '70s and the country being reduced to a standstill produced by the enormous and badly used power of the Trade Unions holding Britain to ransom, may have also been a factor in the electorate's decision to keep this Marxist-headed hydra away from government again.

The opinion polls preceding the elections - giving the two main parties, Conservatives and Labour, neck and neck, and predicting a tight result - turned out to be all wrong.

The exit polls, which survey people as they exit from the voting booths, thus crucially taken after they have voted and therefore relying on the declaration of a fact rather than taken before the vote and therefore relying on the declaration of an intention, have been proven right.

If exit polls have erred, it's been only in being too close to the opinion polls' results: the distance between the two main parties has revealed itself to be even greater than that predicted by the exit polls, which were putting the Tories as the largest party to come out of the election but still without an overall majority.

The Conservative Party, instead, did get an overall majority of 12 seats and can govern on its own.

The Liberal Democrats, as well as Labour, have been treated too well by the exit polls: these predicted 10 seats for them, but only 8 materialised. They've lost as many as 49 seats. They are a dead party walking.

So, despite the news that polls conducted by the parties themselves were closer to predicting the real vote results, the opinion polls of the days before the election in the end created a lot of confusion and false leads and tracks, with parties frantically trying to follow the suggestions mistakenly indicated by them.

It's a deserved punishment, I think. Politicians these days rely by far too much on opinion polls, not to mention focus groups.

They don't have the courage of their convinctions. Even closer to the truth, they don't have convictions.

With rare exceptions. One of whom is Nigel Farage.

After the resignation which he had promised if he hadn't got elected and which he tendered, I hoped that he would reconsider. When he announced that during the summer he would decide whether to run as a candidate in the UKIP's leadership contest due in September, I hoped he would decide to do so and be re-elected as leader, that his fellow Ukippers would realise that no-one else can achieve what he did for their party.

Now things have gone even better: they have rejected his resignation and he's staying on.

He shouldn't even have resigned, in my view. Unlike the various Milibands and Cleggs, he didn't do anything wrong and has taken UKIP from strength to strength.

UKIP is now the country's third party in terms of share of the vote, with 3,881,129 votes, 12.6% of the vote. But it's got only one seat. It's not the UKIP which is at fault, even less Farage: it's the electoral system. That will have to change in favour of proportional representation.

Farage said that he had liked the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system but now he didn't. I used to think, cynically: yes, you liked it because it's typically "British" and non-continental, but now that you suffer the consequences of this method which ruthlessly punishes small and new parties, you don't like it. But in fact what he added as the reason for his change of mind is true: FPTP used to deliver overall majorities and stable one-party governments, but now it doesn't do even that, doesn't offer even that benefit.

It seems to me that almost everyone agrees that FPTP must be replaced. The problem, and the disagreement, is with which. This could be the reason why the referendum on this issue didn't deliver a solution to the question mark of the British electoral system.

Another monstrosity created by which, along with that of UKIP being the third party but having only one seat, is the other great novelty and revolution of this election: the astronomical growth of the Scottish National Party (SNP).

With 4.7%, a bit over a third of UKIP's share of the vote, it got 56 seats in the House of Commons. FPTP favours parties whose voters are are highly concentrated in the same constituencies, like the SNP, rather than scattered all over the country, like the UKIP which has come second in over 100 constituencies and third in hundreds more.

The reality of the matter, though,is that, in the same way as the SNP's number of seats doesn't represent and is not sustained by a corresponding number and percentage of votes, similarly those 56 seats are an overestimate of the real power that the party will have in the British Parliament.

Cameron, strong in his new absolute majority, can easily ignore the ridiculous demands of this small party that doesn't have the interests of the country, but only of a part of it, Scotland, at heart.

He knows he has the English electorate behind him. Some Scottish politicians and commentators say he doesn't have a mandate from the Scottish people. But herein lies the paradox and the contradiction of the Scots.

They rejected independence in a referendum but then voted almost unanimously (56 out of 59 Scottish seats), also helped by the nonsensical FPTP, for a party that wants and has been fighting for that very same independence. How can they say that the Tories have no mandate to govern over Scotland, if Britain is united and especially after they are responsible for having decided to keep it united in a referendum?

Now they're using their massive vote for a Scottish independentist party as an excuse to refuse a mandate for Cameron, but they can't because they also voted to recognise that mandate, by remaining part of the country over which that mandate exists.

They want their cake and it. This is where their contradiction lies. And the cake is the amount of money that England pays to Scotland:

It is hard to compute exactly how much the Scots cost the English. But according to figures published today by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, total public spending was around 11 per cent higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole in 2011-12.

Official figures from the previous year suggest Scotland spent £62 bn but raised just £45 bn — an annual subsidy from the English taxpayer of at least £17 bn.

Also, research in 2007 showed almost one in three Scots workers had a taxpayer-funded job. [Emphasis added]

I may be wrong, but prima face it would appear that the Scottish voters said no to independence in the referendum because they don't want to renounce the English money. But they do want independence, hence they overwhelmingly voted for the SNP.

England and Scotland are now going in politically opposite directions, reflecting who's footing the bill. The Scots want to receive more and more money, so they voted "anti-austerity", "anti-cuts" SNP. The English, who disproportionately pay for benefits and the like, have finally sobered up, showing that people are not so stupid after all.

They've realised that the country cannot keep spending money it hasn't got, and have probably at last started thinking of their children and grandchildren saddled with an ever-expanding, crushingly onerous debt. Hence their clear preference for the Conservatives, a party of better fiscal responsibility. The Scots are prodigal with public money they receive, the English are prudent with public money they give.

It seems obvious that Scotland and England are politically irreconcilable now, one going to the extreme Left and the other to the Centre-Right, and that they cannot easily remain in the same type of union. Maybe they'll form a federation.

If the Scots want independence, they should be prepared to pay for their autonomous choices and autonomous budget. What they may want, though, is independence without its cost.

It's also unsustainable that the Scots have two Parliaments and the English one. Scottish MPs can vote on English laws but not vice versa. This is clearly unfair.

How can those 56 SNP MPs fight for Scotland’s interests when they have been elected to the British Parliament, so they should fight for the interests of all the British people? It seems borderline unconstitutional.

At any rate, the UK is going through a political revolution, an earthquake. I hadn't seen anything like it before, the old system - that seemed unshakeable - has gone forever.

It goes to show how sometimes change is just around the corner and we didn't see it coming.

Green Party from LGBTIQ to Trio Marriages

On the eve of the General Election for the UK Parliament, the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett, has said that her party is "open" to the possibility of three-way (or more-way) marriages.

The Australian-born Bennett, who has written for Leftist papers like The Guardian and The Independent and looks like a lesbian (it doesn't mean that she is), made those comments in response to a question posed by a reader of the homosexualist news website Pink News during a Q&A session on 1 May.

The reader asked: "At present those in a ‘trio’ (a three-way relationship) are denied marriage equality, and as a result face a considerable amount of legal discrimination.

“As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”

Bennett answered: “At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people.

“We are, uniquely in this country, a party whose policies are developed and voted for by our members.

“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”

That declaration of openness of party policies to being developed by members rings a bit hollow in the light of the expulsion of Brighton Councillor Christina Summers, a Christian, from the Green Party because she supports homosexual relationships and civil partnerships but voted against same-sex marriage.

She rightly complained: "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice.

"It raises a big question - can Christians serve in the public realm? They are saying don't bring your faith into politics."

Contrast this with the UK Independence Party:

As party leaders fight for the 'Christian vote', UKIP are promising to extend protections for those who disagree with same-sex marriage, and "uphold robustly the rights of Christians" all over the UK.

In the foreword to his 'Christian manifesto', Nigel Farage says Britain needs "a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution" [Emphasis added].

Britain's Green Party has always been in close relationship with the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) movement, as shown by the fact that its only Member of Parliament was elected in Brighton, the UK's capital of homosexuality and similar deviations from the sexual norm.

The Greens in general have a history of fighting for the recognition of paedophilia. The British Green Party's counterpart in Germany in its 1981 election party manifesto advocated legalising sex between children and adults.

No less a figure than the co-president of the European Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament from 2004 to 2014, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has a past of both defending and admitting to paedophilia. Born in France to German-Jewish parents, he had been the hero of the 1968 students revolts, a revolutionary and anarchist.

When the German Green Party was founded in 1980, paedophiles were part of it. Some documents show that the influence of paedophiles on the party was much stronger than previously thought. The Spiegel wrote:

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

Just to underline the connection between attacking the family from one angle (LGBT and homomarriage) and eroding it from another (polygamy), the Green Party recently launched its "LGBTIQ manifesto", aptly in Soho, and Bennett told IBTimes UK that "top firms can boost the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender business leaders by introducing gender board quotas".

In case you haven't kept up with the ever-expanding alphabet minestrone of the "sexually liberated", "LGBTIQ" stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning": that seems to me to include everything, but there are still so many other letters in the alphabet, so why not use them? In fact, I can think of other deviations not yet publicly declared and accepted, therefore I expect the acronym to lengthen.

This is exactly what we've been predicting: legalising same-sex marriage would open the way to all other sorts of matrimonial perversions, including polygamy, incest and wedding one's pet.

Despite the outrage and claims to the contrary from the homosexual marriage camp (no pun intended), this is in fact what has happened.

And, if homomarriage supporters didn't want to admit that, fans of polygamy could see the connection, as the June 2013 headline "Polygamists welcome Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage predicting relationships with multiple people will be next" clearly indicated.

In most European countries, laws against incest are no longer enforced if the incest takes place between consenting adults.

In fact, is anyone capable of offering rational (I underline "rational") reasons why homosexual marriage should be allowed and not marriage of an incestuous couple, marriage of a threesome, or marriage between a man or woman and his/her pet or any other animal, or indeed any other form of marriage, if desired by the relevant parties?

If the only precondition for marriage is love, there is nothing stopping the wedding of a man and his dog, or of two blood relatives (incest is also increasingly permitted by the legislation of some countries) or of an adult and a child.

The legalisation of marriage of more than two people follows logically from two premises which have been used to formulate the justification for same-sex marriages. 

It is a syllogism.

First premise: the expression of a person's sexual orientation in all its forms, including long-term commitment through marriage and the legal recognition of this marriage, is a human right.

Second premise: we have said that marriage, including same-sex marriage, is a long-term lifelong commitment as in heterosexual marriage, so a bisexual person cannot fulfill his or her sexual orientation just with one person, but needs at least two.

Ergo, conclusion: to respect the human rights of bisexual people - and there is no reason why we shouldn't, actually we should - we must legally recognise the marriage of more than two people.

Andrew Sapia left this comment to one of my articles on the subject:

[O]ne can hardly be for gay marriage and against polygamy. Polygamy has a long history, it was practiced in the old testament and is practiced in Islam. How could any western government argue against polygamy and for gay marriage. This will no doubt be the first serious challenge and I don't see how the polygamist looses.

There have already been cases of threesome marriages in Brazil and Holland, foursome weddings in Belgium, and elsewhere. Interestingly, Belgium and the Netherlands were also among the first countries to legalise same-sex marriage.

In France it is estimated that up to half a million of the country's 60 million inhabitants live in polygamous families, although presumably the large Muslim presence in that country will have an impact on that figure.

It's funny how in matters like the environment, food and health there is an obsession with the condition of being natural which many times goes well beyond rationality, whereas with matters that have to do with the human and social conditions we don't even attempt to get as close to what is natural as possible, and so the idea for instance of a child having two mothers only or two fathers only is considered acceptable.

This latest news from the Green camp powerfully brings home the message that same-sex marriage is not just a question of personal choice: it's a choice that concerns all society, because marriage is a social institution, as well a Christian sacrament, and is central to society, so what happens to it concerns us all and will have consequences for us all, not just homosexuals.

Why I Don't Call Socio-Communists "Liberals"

I never call Leftists "liberals", unless in inverted commas, for several reasons, the most important of which is that they are not liberals.

Classical liberalism, a political philosophy born in 17th-18th-century Europe, may have had many defects but it did not descend to the hellish depths of socialism and communism.

The reason why socialists and communists today call themselves "liberal" is because "socialist" and "communist" would be much more unpalatable to the public.

But changing your name doesn't alter the reality of what you are; it merely deceives others.

The term "liberal" instead has a nice ring to it. Beyond the political sphere, the dictionary is full of positive meanings for it: "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas", "favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms", "favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform", "(of a person) giving generously".

In addition, it has the same root as the word "liberty", and here is where the deception is at its worst: "liberals" are usually people who much prefer a big to a small state and want to shut up dissidents and silence opposing views, in the good old socio-communist tradition.

Incidentally, the difference between socialism and communism is not as great as many erroneously think. Karl Marx theorised them as two stages of the same process. After the social revolution, he said, a dictatorship of the proletariat will be established, and that he named "socialism"; after some time such dictatorship will wither away, because socialism will make the presence of the state unnecessary, and will be replaced by communism, which ultimately coincides with anarchy or absence of the state (from its Greek root, which means "absence of power"), which Marx termed "communism", characterised by the formula "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (of which the present system of welfare state and high taxation adopted by modern Western countries, also known as "redistribution of wealth", is an only slightly lesser form).

There are still many individuals, very often in high places of command (like politics) or influence (like the media and Hollywood), who have not abandoned the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, or of anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, or - even closer to us - of the Cultural Marxism that emerged from the Frankfurt School, with Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer.

They know that, after the mass-murderous experiences of failed attempts to establish communist societies that have opened many people's eyes to the evil of those ideas, they cannot overtly declare themselves to be what they are.

Hence the origin of the widely-employed label "liberal".

But they every so often show their true colours when they reveal their appreciation and admiration for the worst communist dictators and killers, as US President Obama did when he praised Ho Chi Minh. Similarly, when Venezuelan communist President Hugo Chavez died, it turned out that he had many friends among our Western "liberal" leaders, like British hard-Left politicians George Galloway, Labour Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn.

It's true that those blessed with political awareness do know that, when the word "liberal" is used - particularly in America -, the opposite of its sense is actually meant.

But why use it at all in that sense, then? Why accept the socialists' and communists' ploy to disguise themselves? Why not call a wolf a "wolf" - noble as these predatory animals are -, even if in sheep's clothing? Why call it a "lamb"?