US: Why we should welcome President Trump

So, the votes have been cast; America has elected a new President, and the world is a little bit safer for all of us.

There's still a long way to go, but the possibilities are encouraging.

What is not encouraging though, is the refusal of media and many 'democrats' to accept the will of the people. Their disappointment is understandable, but their actions are not.

The same broadcasters who accused Mr. Trump of being headstrong and extreme, are now complaining that his post-election moderation is a sign of backtracking, while the rioting on US streets is nowhere portrayed as the threat to Democracy that it surely is.

That America chose a brash and arrogant billionaire over a corrupt and duplicitous millionaire should have surprised nobody, but it has truly shocked those who would have us believe that they know better than everyone else. Go figure that one out.

But the biggest challenge to popular revolution is yet to come.

Europe has a plethora of elections in 2017, and the defending elite will now be on their guard following Brexit and Trump. These are also countries that are not native English speaking, so their media outlets have a captive audience for the globalized and deceitful propaganda that passes as news and commentary, but success is a great incubator, so we can remain hopeful for the future.

Can President Trump succeed in making America great again?

Why not, he has identified many of the problems, which is the essential first step, and although some of his 'solutions' are no such things, he has skilled advisers and voters on his side, so he has a chance.

As someone taking time off from a minor property development of my own to write this post, I can appreciate that despite his wealth, Donald is part of the real world, knows it's restrictions and understands that the laws of physics and economics cannot be defied, unlike those fiat financiers who have for too long held the rest of us to ransom.

Anyway, Good luck Mr. Trump.

US: Obama's last stand?

Exactly when the Department of Defense went rogue may be uncertain, but it's refusal to comply with the terms of Syrian ceasefire went a long way to scuppering a unified assault on International terrorism, so what's next?

Talk of a 'no fly zone' which we all know is a euphemism for regime change by any and all means necessary, could only result in open conflict with Russia, and the question remains, just how many lunatics are running amok in the pentagon?

But there is method in their madness, too.

If Donald Trump becomes favourite to defeat Hilary Clinton, then America may find itself following the dark and well trodden path of despots and non-democratic governments, and start a war, thus creating an external adversary to either gain public support, or as a way to impose martial law, and suspend the presidential elections.

When Ben Carson first floated this idea back in 2014, the idea seemed extreme and merely paranoid conservatism, but current warmongering and media compliance to the general softening-up of public opinion, means that the Anarchy he warned about could be within US government, and not on the streets.

Can President Obama resist the madmen and women closest to him, or is he really the lame duck they perceive him to be? 

This is another question that presents itself, and the answer may determine his true legacy and all our futures.

UK: Damned if you do...

It is not for me to defend a Tory ex-Prime Minister, but one of the benefits of hindsight, is people's poor memory of circumstances and selective recall of 'facts', totally out of context.

For all Cameron's later failings over Libya, the initial urgency to prevent murder on what was shaping to be a monumental scale, should not be understated.

When a regime which was capable, and willing, to murder 1,270 prisoners in secret, then describes protesters as rats and cockroaches, and announces that rebels should surrender (their weapons) or face "slaughter" [Gaddafi also threatened to purge Libya "house by house" and "inch by inch"] we must conclude that the outcome would have been bloody, possibly beyond our feeble imagination.

Those who now complain that there was large loss of life in any case, might be too young to remember, or even care, about what happened in Cambodia in the mid 1970's, or Rwanda in the mid 1990's, but those of us forced to live through the utter and callous complacency of Western leaders and governments to what was happening, are not so dismissive of the sometimes need for humanitarian intervention.

We are also old enough to know that 'intervention' is more usually a euphemism for regime change or other geopolitical maneuvering, and that is why acting over Libya was so important, because most dictators go to great lengths to hide their murderous instructions and cover-up the deeds of their followers, so it is rare to have a situation where military action is so clearly called for.

The aftermath of such an intervention is quite another matter, and the subsequent abandonment of Libya to the Islamic State is part of an ongoing, global distress.

US: A timely reminder

Security planners and personnel around the world should breathe a shared sigh of relief that 9/11, for this year at least, has gone off relatively peacefully with possibly only a minor skirmish in Kenya to note. Of course this was not for the want of trying, and we may never know how many planned attacks were foiled, but let's take our blessings as they come, and be thankful.

The jihadist's unrelenting attempts to commemorate and highlight their deeds of 15 years ago, are already well known, but there is more to this grim anniversary than that.

For as soon as the clock struck midnight the media and politicians (for the most part, anyway), put away their sad faces for another year, and reverted to their jolly 'islam is a Religion of Peace' mantra, while continually wondering how so many muslims could read koranic texts and then act upon them. And, as September 12th began, the never ending guilt by association with events that may have upset muslims, continued anew and refreshed.

This is why 9/11 is such an important day in all our calendars.

It is otherwise easy to pronounce that French cartoonists were killed because they drew cartoons, or that innocents are being murdered across Europe and America, because of their government's actions. But remembering the murder of thousands on that day should, and will, also serve to remind us that the Afghan invasion was the result, and not the cause, of 9/11.

And while the invasion of Iraq was undoubtedly a crass piece of settling scores by the younger Bush, following on from the unfinished work of his father; the purpose of that first Desert Storm, was to remove Kuwait from the clutches of Sadam Hussein and had no Western Imperialistic intentions, other than those usual drivers of money and oil.

It is also noteworthy that just a few days ago permission was given to build a wall in France to prevent 'migrants' from attacking lorries and their drivers. Yet, while all our sympathies are engineered towards the humanitarian plight of these 'victims of war', and by implication, our wars, we should remember that iterations of the infamous 'jungle' camp have been around since 1999 - long before 9/11, et al.

Lastly, the distaste at muslim attempts to build a victory mosk on the murder scene, may also become an annual pointer to the reality and depth of stealth jihad, and if so, then the families and friends of the victims of 9/11 should find more than a little comfort from knowing that the ones they remember, really did not die in vain.

France: Bucking the burka

What looks like a bizarre and unnecessary ban on a stupid piece of swimwear may have more going for it than we like to accept.

A country that has just suffered a series of deadly attacks on it's innocent and defenseless citizens, must surely do, and be seen to do, something decisive. The obvious question now is whether this (effectively a hijab ban) is a suitable measure.

There are many debates about French secularism and islamic sensibilities, but from a security perspective, sunny beaches are the ultimate in 'soft' targets for terrorists, and having just returned from a European holiday, when my mind did drift back to the muslim who murdered 38 people on a sunny Tunisian beach, I can attest that anything which helps prevent such attacks is to be applauded and supported.

But there is another side to this story, and it appears that muslims are not to be inconvenienced or challenged about their behavior or dress, despite their community's overt and covert, support for the jihadi's living among them.

This is almost amusing, having spent several hours lining up to be screened and inspected at airports on the aforementioned holiday, all measures imposed courtesy of jihadist murderers, it is difficult to sympathize with those who complain that their lives are adversely affected by the brutal actions of their coreligionists.

This is one bit of assimilation that they cannot avoid; welcome to life in the West.

One could compare women being required to dress according to their surroundings on a beach, with women not being allowed to wear shorts and t-shirt in mosks, but a more realistic question is to ask how long would it take for the cloaking of women to become normalized, such that those who chose not to cover up while relaxing, would be frowned upon and made to feel inappropriately dressed?

It is sad though.

Just a couple of years ago on a lakeside in France, I was struck at how hard a group of young muslims were trying to join in with the fun, The mothers wore headscarves and loose clothing while their children played with everyone else, in what appeared to be two cultures living differently yet together, but much has happened since then, and it is becoming clear that the people of France have some big decisions to make on how their country is to continue.


Back in England, the BBC news were all over the story of French police enforcing the ban, which is now portrayed as an attack on freedom, rather than a liberating act. I guess you pays your money and you takes your pick, but in a TV interview one irate muslima complained bitterly that she was being told what to do and what to wear or not.

What was that all about?

I can't find the news item online, but you get the picture: She sat stern faced and sincerely berated the state for daring to dictate her dress code, all the while wearing the black and ominous garb dictated to desert tribeswomen by a camel-trading pedophile, over a thousand years ago.

Now that is bizarre.

EU: Not so silly, anymore.

Last minute packing for the family vacation, I am reminded of when this was called the Silly Season, as parliaments went into recess, schools closed and business slowed to a crawl, there was little news worthy of the title, and the media scrabbled for something to fill their allotted slots.

Photos of polar bears being furnished with ice to cool off during the less frequent heat waves, was the sort of image we came to expect, and were not even surprised if traffic caused by the occasional cat rescue from high in some central London tree made it to the 6 o'clock news.

How far away those days seem now.

Even the Olympic sports are struggling to maintain centre stage, with Zika and the drug fiasco and rioting in Rio. It appears that Brasilians haven't taken too kindly to their recent coup, not unlike Turkey and Ukraine.

We have major wars in Yemen and Syria, with 'lesser' conflicts in Libya and Iraq, but the bloody list continues, radiating out from the Arabian incubator through Africa, Asia and Europe.

In addition to being one of the front lines for islamic jihad, Europe also has multiple forest fires, some started deliberately, but no use seeking a motive there, because we will never trust the answer anyway...

Ah well, best get back to the suitcase.

UK: Mayday Mayday

Theresa May's reshuffled government has a wonderful new idea to spout, even as Global Warming continues apace, and yes let's call it that, why pussy around with all this 'climate change' nonsense?

2015 was the warmest year since records began, joining fourteen others, to make it 15 out the last 16, and to quote NASA:-

 " Last year was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average."

Oil prices have slumped to below $50 a barrel again, making oil both an unhealthy and unprofitable commodity, yet Ms May has decided to introduce bribery into the fracking debate.

Whether it be oil or gas, common sense tells us that what's under the ground, should stay in the ground, no if's and no but's.

It will be hard enough to reverse what's already occurring without adding to the problem, yet that's exactly what's being proposed.

If our Global predicament is not enough to dissuade our leaders, then what about local issues, like land and water pollution and those pesky little earthquakes caused by our previous frack-fest?

Whatever the outcome of this 'initiative', and it won't make a huge difference to the planet or to people not living in close proximity, there is a larger and more pressing concern.

It is still fully within our capability to fix what needs fixing on planet Earth, but without the will that ability is worthless, yet businesses and politicians continue to abuse their positions and our trust.

Fracking is an unnecessary distraction, a deliberate and unconscionable reinforcement of the 'climate change' deniers.

A bit like calling our current situation, anything other than Global Warming.

France: What name, the enemy?

As the people of Rouen laid their fallen priest to rest with the whole world looking on, few believed for one moment that there would not be more attacks like those of the past few weeks, when Europeans faced islamic jihad on a scale and with a regularity previously experienced only in countries where islam is already dominant or approaching dominance, yet many persist in skirting the issue or attempt to deflect and diminish the jihadist reality with which we now live.

This avoidance was clearly demonstrated by the unabashed glee with which our liberal media pounced on the vague possibility that the Munich McDonalds’ attack was the work of a right-wing extremist. It is interesting to note that we rarely see a corresponding joy when those warning of islamic jihad are vindicated, only a sober determination to continue the fight for truth.

But for all the horrors we have witnessed, and knowing that there are more to come, some things make matters far worse than they need be. To many of us, at least those not yet deprived of our sanity, the most galling aspect of this darkening world is the inexplicable position taken by religious leaders, particularly here in the West.

We know about the media agenda, and also that politicians and businessmen can be corrupted, bought and paid for by promises of power and petrodollars; but when lifelong Christians and theologians, proudly proclaim that islam is a religion of peace, and there is nothing to fear and no objection can be made to the growing threat to our life and society, we rightly wonder, along with Mr Trump, ‘What the hell is going on’ ?

This situation is all the more confusing, given that Christians and Christianity are primary targets for eradication, along with Jews and Judaism. It is also fact that almost from it’s inception, Christians, including the saints themselves, have warned about the gathering threat of islam.

So why now, when the danger is more pressing than ever before, have Christian leaders abandoned their flocks to the brutal mohamedan onslaught?

After that callous murder and desecration in a small Catholic church in Normandy, Pope Francis has again called for the introduction of potential assasins into Poland, even against the will of the people in that most Catholic of countries.

Remembering how the tenure of Pope Benedict was unusually terminated, especially after the fuss surrounding his Regensburg lecture, we may speculate whether poor health were the real or only reason for his early retirement, and many theories have been forwarded about the subsequent change of Papal direction.

These range from dementia and cowardice, to his secret conversion to islam and pacts with the devil, and this clip  seems to add weight to this last conjecture.

In it we see what appears to be an incantation to Lucifer, vowing allegiance and declaring him God, and father of Jesus.

• Before we get too upset by this, let’s take a look at the name, which is not necessarily satanic, it simply means "bringing light", derived from Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bring".
• There were even a couple of 4^th Century bishops who bore the name before it’s modern, more sinister association. See Lucifer of Sienna and Lucifer of Cagliari

What is this then, truth, misinterpretation or hoax?

Well, I contend that it’s all, some, and none of the above, but it may provide the key to some of the most important questions facing Western civilization today:-

1. Why are Christian leaders empowering islam to propagate and destroy Western culture, such that, within a very few years, Christianity, Democracy, and our Secular and Humanitarian values will be overrun and our descendants either killed, subjucated, or forced into never ending and relentless conflict with the forces of barbarism?
2. And why does the Pope say that this is not a religious war, when everyone with an eye to open, can see that is exactly what it is?

There is one important thing to consider here; despite it’s apparent superstitious obsessions, and archaic institutions, the Catholic Church is highly structured and organized, and has remained so for nearly two millenia. Achieving such continuity has not come from random changes in direction or belief, and any change in policy will have been scrutinized and debated, theologically analysed and validated against accepted doctrine.

The Pope may look like a dictator, but he is subject to the Senate more than Caeser ever was. So for the Catholic heirarchy to embrace islam, we can be sure that there is some strong basis within Christian dogma.

Another important consideration, is that Christians and particularly Catholics, when accepting the Bible as the foundational text for humanity, must believe that an omnipotent Deity would know about anyone seriously threatening to destroy His Church, and such a person would be foretold and warned about, within it’s pages.

This should be obvious, and not even controversial whether we are believers or not; for any God who produced such a book, by whatever means and through whatever messengers, as Creator of the Universe, He must always have known that His Church and people would one day be faced with extinction, to not know that, is surely inconceivable, and must be an unassailable test of the Bible’s authenticity.

One might even conclude that an atheist, when debating Christianity, should be able to point to the Bible and say ‘Show me where it speaks of Mohamed!’ as a demand of verification.

We do not need to believe this is truth, to be assured that the Pope and his peers do, for anything less indicates such impotence, as to deny the very existence of God.

Returning to our earlier questions about why Christian leaders are ignorant or oblivious to the dangers we face, it may be explained by them thinking that islam is the church of Lucifer, not the devil as popularly understood, but an angel who sat at God’s side, then through pride and ambition fell from grace.

And as such, it becomes a compelling picture, which perfectly fits today’s narrative of one universal Religion with the same God, where muslims are all peaceful and pious – just christians minus Christ; waiting to be shown the nature of that which has been hidden from them. Led astray, but only a little, by mohamed - a previously kind and benevolent prophet whose only fault was in his jealousy of Jesus as God’s only Son.

Now this may seem a harmless bit of theatrics, a convenient way of bringing Christianity and islam together, in some sort or interfaith dialogue of equals, but it is fallacy, a terrible fallacy.

Please bear with me now, for it is not what you or I believe that matters here, but what Christian theologians, ecumenical councils and the rest, might believe. It is what governs their thoughts and drives their actions that matters, and if they believe that islam is just an offshoot of Christianity and that mohamed was once a heavenly angel, then that really does matter to us all.

There are many discussions on whether Lucifer was the bringer of light, a fallen angel or even the devil himself; it seems that the name can be anything or anyone that you want it to be, but surely this cannot include mohamed.

Firstly, it is logical that lucifer predates or is contemporary with Jesus, and it was when Jesus became God incarnate, that Lucifer fell from grace. But islam appeared six centuries after Christ, also, according to any scripture that I know, only Christ has been manifest on Earth, and Lucifer has never taken Man’s body and blood, to walk among us.

Secondly, this fallen angel idea ignores what mohamed actually did:- his earthly crimes and excesses, his callous and unholy actions that have shamed mankind to the extent that we might hope he was a mere invention of others who sought to use this infamy for their own gains, but sadly we see that such evil can and does exist; and by his collaboration, it is this very evil that Pope Francis seeks to visit upon us.

And Lucifer refused to recognise Christ, but mohamed neither ignored or disputed Jesus, but rather he made distortions and perversions, portraying Christ as one like himself, a coward and deceiver, who sent another to be crucified in His place and who will return to destroy His own Church and people. And that includes you, pope Francis.

So, if Lucifer was not mohamed, we still need to answer our atheistic brethren: Where does the Bible talk about a historical figure who comes after Jesus, one with the aim of destroying Christianity and Judaism, and setting the world on a path to ultimate destruction?

No prizes here, as most still reading this piece will already have identified the antiChrist of Revelation, so for now, you’ll just need to content yourself with being right.

But what’s the big deal, what’s the difference, aren’t they just names?

Well, Pope Francis was fine washing the feet of the unenlightened, (christians without Christ) the followers of one of our own fallen angels, but could we similarly imagine him washing and fawning over disciples of the antiChrist?

Can we also conceive of our religious leaders calling for the introduction of armies of antiChristians into our homelands, to fight and struggle against our laws and God-given freedoms?

There are millions of reasons to identify mohamed as the antiChrist, probably somewhere around 1.6 billion, to be accurate, and by not doing so we are driving deeper into unfathomable darkness, than We have ever gone before.

To call mohamed Lucifer, is to accord a spiritual dimension that was never there. This removes responsibility from his followers, for they are merely human, so how could they resist the devil’s own influence? Fr. Hamel reportedly denounced satan, rather than his murderers, as they committed their ritual sacrifice, and while their acts were certainly demonic, they were born of anti-Christian ideology, not some transcendent, evil force.

Whether we believe in the Bible as Truth or myth, a greater and more dangerous myth is that islam has anything to do with the teachings in that Book, beyond those which mohamed took and perverted, for his own earthly ends.

Germany: Merkel marches on

So Frau Merkel vows to continue with her pet project, despite the consequences.

Like some cartoon character, who ignores the cliff edge getting closer, she is determined to run on and over the precipice, and it might be funny, except that this Chancellor is just as determined to take her own nation, and the rest of Europe, with her, on this one-way trip to oblivion.

What hold does she have on the German population, and what is wrong with German politics and European Democracy, that one insane vision can destroy the lives of so many millions of people?

In the UK at least, one good thing has come out of her intransigence. 

Many of those who, just a few short weeks ago, were inconsolably upset by the Brexit vote, must now be thinking: 'Thank God for that'.

EU: Merkel muss weg

After the vote for Britain to leave the EU, David Cameron did the only sensible thing, and resigned, but the chaos continues.

The rest of Europe is in turmoil too.

Austria is to re-run their Presidential elections, while there are calls for referendums across the EU, Democracy, it seems, is breaking out all over Europe, except in one place, that place is where the troubles emanate from and are enabled.

Although she is also facing the threat of democratic demands from her population, she is unlikely to accept such an assault from the forces of freedom, neither is she likely to do the 'honourable' thing and resign. Germany and Europe are stuck with her, for now at least.

Warum Merkel muss gehen.

When Cameron won the last election amid promises to hold a referendum on UK's membership of the EU, he immediately went to meet with mama, with promises that he could secure real reforms of the bureaucratic mess that EU has become under German and French direction. She agreed it was necessary, then gave him nothing.

She obviously felt that saying one thing and doing another is an acceptable way of conducting international affairs (and she's not alone there, of course). But by accepting the need, yet delivering nothing, she opened the door for Britain to leave, and they have voted to do just that.

Perhaps she thought that British people were more concerned with their pockets than their way of lives, and even life itself, but of that, she was grossly mistaken.

One million 'migrants' coming from the most disgusting war zones, where crimes against humanity, and even against God Himself, may not bother her, but it bothers many of us.

That 80% of those arriving, are single, fighting aged males, may not concern her either, but they concern those of us with families to protect.

That she called for the invasion of Europe, by people who are religiously opposed to our culture and faith, may not interest her, but it is most definitely in our interest.

And when she destroyed Greece, forcing them to fund her bailout of German and French banks, imposing even harsher conditions after their referendum against just such cruel austerity, did she think that we would not notice, or that we would be too scared to fight her new Reich?

We knew that we might be next, and so it has transpired with EU attempts to make an example of us and force us to leave, without even a cursory glimpse at what our new 'status' might be.

And what of the illustrious Chancellor, surely she has helped Germany become the industrial powerhouse of Europe, so she must know something?

Yeah, right.

German exports are built on the Southern European states, whose sluggish economies keep the Euro valued way below, possibly half, of what the Deutsch mark would otherwise be, thus making VW, Mercedes and BMW et al, affordable and attractive throughout the world.

German engineering is good, but it is expensive, or it would be, if Germany stood alone instead of being supported and nurtured by the rest of Europe. Her great 'achievement' for the German economy therefore, has been in keeping the rest of Europe poor, and the Euro down.

So, the question might be better put, not why should she go, but how can she stay?

UK: For those too young to know

With the aftershocks following the vote for Brexit, one of the many interesting outcomes, has been the first truly generational divide, certainly in the sense of democratic decisions, with a substantial difference in generational voting.

My own daughter sat downcast bemoaning how 'older people' had swung the vote away from her perceived perfect result.

Well that's a shame.

I did not vote btw, although a committed European, I could not, in all conscience, put my weight behind what the EU has become, and chose instead to go with the flow, also because I do not trust our politicians, one way or the other.

Having said that, the un-preparedness of our elected (and unelected) elite, has been a most welcome, and surprising result. With no time to spin and deceive, we have been treated to wall to wall coverage of their utter and unmitigated incompetence.

Perhaps some real good will come of this.

And that's the most important point, democracy works. But it is not a stabilizing establishment as we like to believe, which cements and confirms the status quo of continuing and relentless inequality and subjugation. Democracy is a force for change, where many small (and some not so small) democratic events prevent sudden revolutionary upheavals, and in that respect only, stability is preserved.

But back to the fun.

Witnessing the glum faces of the EU establishment has alone been worth the admission fee. David Cameron has done the right thing and resigned, though Mama Merkel is unlikely to follow, but that's perhaps asking too much of the person who has single handedly destroyed the European community - just what is it with German chancellors?

On Saturday morning, I popped down to our local Asian convenience store for a freshly baked baguette and was immediately struck by the excited buzz which reminded me of what London was like before the slow and bureaucratic institution of EU stifled our collective spirit.

And what about Obama? He came, he interfered, and he got nothing, perhaps he has more to learn from Mr Trump than he he is able to admit, too late now in any case.

So what of the future?

Brexit hasn't happened yet, and that will need to be watched very closely, there is already a campaign to ignore or reverse the result, a very dangerous path to pursue because what worked in Greece will find stiffer opposition here for sure.

And for all those children of the EU, who have never known what a vibrant Democracy feels like, it may not be much comfort right now, but sometimes we all need to accept that daddy knows best.

UK: Politicizing politics

With the tragic death of Labour MP Jo Cox we are left with the strangest of situations.

A disturbed and otherwise unremarkable loner has gained national and international notoriety by murdering a young unarmed woman week before her 42nd birthday. Sound familiar?

Well yes, except that in this case the motives and ideological inspiration behind his actions are front and centre of the investigation. But how can that be, surely his mental and social conditions are enough to explain this cowardly act?

Apparently not.

When the ideology is right wing extremism, and the motive is retaliation for the many and varied problems caused by government policies here in the UK, it is fine to bring us full disclosure of his home, reading material and political world-view.

No heart wrenching, soul searching dilemmas about how, why and when he became a 'radicalized' political extremist, where Thomas Mair is concerned - his attire and choice of literature are enough for us to draw reasonable and immediate assumptions about his motives and external contributing forces.

So is this a watershed?

Have we now realized the importance of knowing what inspires ideologically driven assassins, whether they be in organized groups or the much vaunted 'lone wolf' as here? Is it clear now that whatever a political killer shouts during his murderous attack, is a vital clue to understanding this, and preventing any more, such attacks? Assuredly so, provided the outrage is accompanied by cries of 'Britain first' or whatever else he may have yelled,

But, we are entitled to ask, supposing the next murderer shouts something like 'Alla Akbah', what then?

What do you think?

UK: If one picture says a thousand words...

The first impact of our new mayor of London does not bode well for the future safety and security of those who recently voted him into office.

Westminster council has decided to proceed with controversial plans to remove one of our first lines of defence against criminals, and more importantly, terrorists, in the high profile shopping and tourist centre of London's West End.

While it is true that I don't recall mayor Khan campaigning on a 'law and order' platform when he was elected to office, it was rightly expected that public safety would nevertheless be one of his core priorities.

So why remove all of the council operated cameras at this time of heightened threat?

Well firstly, Mr Kahn has not personally removed the cameras. The council has a budgetary problem, don't we all, and hoped that he and the police would share the costs. He has just refused to help the borough to upgrade and run the service, as have the police, but with the advent of MOPAC the mayor's office 'sets the direction and budget' of the Metropolitan Police Service, so if the mayor does not want cameras, there will be no cameras.

The greatest fear facing London is what used to be called a 'Mumbai style attack', but now can be called a 'Bataclan event' (and which city will be next on that murderous list?)

The ability to follow a gang, or several gangs, of murderers in real time and relay their direction and numbers to those entrusted with risking their own lives to save ours, can only be achieved with a centrally monitored system of cameras, and no shopkeeper's anti-theft setup comes close to providing such a level of protection.

Remembering how crucial video evidence was in identifying the Boston bombers and preventing their campaign from continuing thus saving innumerable lives, it is difficult to imagine what justification there can be for this woeful lack of civic duty from the mayor's office.

There is another possibility.

Our new mayor is a well publicised muslim, and knowing islam so well, he may be deliberately engaging on this path for an altogether different motive.

As these cameras are also used to secure criminal prosecutions - their introduction signalled a 30% drop in street crime - he may have reasoned that with the risk of radicalization among the high proportion of muslim criminals so great, allowing them to continue their criminality unabated, and thus keeping them out of prison is a more effective form of anti-terrorist precaution.

That may seem a bizarre kind of logic, but have you tried reading the koran?

Denmark: Another Theatre of War

"Fear played no role in our decision" Thus spake Morten Kirkskov, head of the dramatic department, when he announced the Royal Theater in Copenhagen would not perform a stage version of Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

But only six months after the Bataclan attacks in Paris, fear should have been a paramount consideration, and not just fear of upsetting Copenhagen's burgeoning muslim population, but fear of what would inevitably happen to Christians across the world, wherever followers of the 'religion of peace' reside. 

Fear of the riots and violence throughout Europe and in his own city, as these peaceful disciples of islam demonstrate their disapproval of art. 

Fear of the inevitable attempts to attack the production, it's actors and spectators, just as the workers at Charlie Hebdo had rightly feared.

And this is not only about what happens in 'other' countries, the Danish already know what cartoon rage leads to, when the pious are aroused from their peaceful slumber by the banshee wailing from their minarets and mullahs.

So Free Speech loses? 

Yes, but not because this production was shelved to save lives and property, but because the real reasons were hidden, denied and lied about.

We all suffer bullying at some stage in our lives, when a stronger person or institution, takes advantage of that strength to hurt or intimidate us, but it is not the act of being bullied that makes us victims, we become victimized when we are afraid to speak out and denounce the bully, it is then that the behaviour continues and increases.

Any responsible manager must take the safety of their patrons and the society in which they function, seriously, and if that means not staging a play like this, then so be it. But to not state why the decision was made is inexcusable: to pretend that criticism of islam has not become a de facto offence, even in the 'free' West, is duplicitous and cowardly.

Those who believe that, despite the inevitable loss of life, the play should have been staged anyway as a defence of Free Speech, might want to think again.

Imagine the play had been performed, the ensuing furore and mayhem would not cause outrage against the perpetrators but rather, as in Garland Texas, the victims would again be blamed for inciting muslims and insulting their prophet. The calls would not be for muslims to accept Western values, but rather for believers in freedom and democracy to adopt their heathen practices and prejudices, and abandon our faith in favour of their lack of it. 

In this world of the absurd, where criticising murder, rape, child molestation and slavery, is termed blasphemy, the pressure to enforce that version of insanity would grow exponentially.

In short, the end result would more likely be legislation to hasten the death of free speech, rather than defend it.

Our way of life is already scarred and damaged, but simply scratching those wounds risks mortally spreading the infection. It is more important now to choose which battlefield and where to deal with those who would cause such harm to us: the Muslim Brotherhood and it's myriad of associates and front groups; the well-meaning but mischievously naive liberals and the compromised and colluded Left.


But it gets worse because, as they were making their ignorant stand for self-censorship in one part of Copenhagen, just across town preparations are being finalized to stage a different art exhibition entirely, where muslim murderers of the innocent are portrayed as martyrs. 

So it seems this is not about denying freedom of expression, it's about taking sides.

And why are these alternative exhibition organisers not afraid that idealising such killers as representatives of a 'peaceful religion' will cause riots and more murders? 

Because World History shows, that the only people stupid enough to believe that islam is a religion of peace, are the ones about to fall victim to it's 'peacefulness'. 

France: Flames of coincidence or collaboration?

With only three weeks until Euro 2016 kicks off in Paris on June 10th the French police might rightly expect to be fine-tuning their emergency response procedures, gathering intelligence, and otherwise preparing for what will undoubtedly be a prime target for islamic terror.

They might not, though, expect to be caught up in running battles with, and attempted murder by, the very population that they may soon be defending with their own lives.

Since the revolution of 1789, the French have had a long and proud history of street protest and disruption, so it is no surprise that any attempt to reform their complex labour laws would inevitably fill the avenues and boulevards with angry and vociferous citizens and there is no need for conspiracy theorists to bother themselves with complex interpretations of recent events.

But there is a bigger picture here, and one that needs exposure.

As the first pieces of wreckage from flight MS804 are being recovered, the reason for it's demise is still unclear and may not even be terrorist related, but the fact that it was destroyed only three hours after leaving Paris, should at least remind the French of just what they are facing, and of the ruthless cruelty of those plotting against them.

We know that islamic jihad and the hard left are kindred spirits in their wish to destroy Western civility and tolerance, but could they really be in league to the extent that they would join in an operation to disrupt our security preparations and diminish our representatives' ability [I say this as a European], to defend us and save our lives?

The people of France should be asking themselves in whose interests these violent gangs are acting?

Let's take a quick 'What / If' scenario:-

Imagine that in one of these violent hotspots, a masked jihadi leaps from the crowd, then waving a machete and screaming ali akbar or (whatever it is they scream to their malevolent deity), he proceeds to hack and swipe at some bleeding policeman, before retreating among his fellow 'protesters'.

Would they feel threatened by his run towards them and part in horror, even assisting with his capture, or would they surround and shield him and assist his escape?

Only a fool would deny that numbers of the latter are active in these demonstrations.

In the same way that there were enablers of the previous fascist occupation of France, there will be those who, through fear or ambition, choose to aid and abet the current invasion, just as there will be those who won't.

Vive La Résistance

UK: the BBCs long road to mediocracy

When the BBC proudly announces that it has:-

• A new mission statement for the BBC: "To act in the public interest, serving all audiences with impartial, high-quality and distinctive media content and services that inform, educate and entertain."

We are bound to ask, so whose interests have they been serving all this time?

As a recipient of direct taxation, the Corporation has always been vulnerable to government interference and pressure, but since the Thatcher regime threatened it's survival, it's dismal decline has continued unabated.

The Falklands War, years of conflict in Northern Ireland, the destruction of British manufacturing, were all issues which it could not be seen to be impartial on, and was left in no doubt what was expected, and what the consequences of dissent would be.

For an organization which prided itself as a trusted provider of News around the world, the collapse of USSR was probably the last time that BBC had a clear purpose.

What we have now is a confused mouthpiece of government policy, a 'cultural icon' in a multicultural society, when most British people don't know what it means to be British any more.

Another laudable function of the new charter:-

• The BBC will be required to give "greater focus to underserved audiences, in particular those from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds and from the nations and regions which are currently less well served".

This, at a time when each and every culture is represented on terrestrial and cable TV, satellite and on-line, as never before.

The irony is that those 'underserved audiences' are mostly watching their preferences elsewhere while the ones providing the licence fee are finding their own culture subsumed and subordinated for the benefit of a largely non-paying and non-existent viewer.

EU: Democracy in action

France rejects TTIP - for now at least.

Francois Hollande has made a fairly firm statement on the unacceptability of the expansion of US legislation, or lack of it, into Europe.

This comes less than three months after he urged Mr Obama to speed up the process, so what's changed?

Well, we now have more information about just how destructive to Europe this 'deal' would be, and President Holland is already about as unpopular as it's possible to be, so Democracy wins, maybe.

But this issue has raised some important considerations.

Firstly, TTIP is not yet gone completely, and there are many ways that a 'compromise' deal could be presented to fool the unwary into accepting the bulk of what has already been negotiated and we neither need nor want.

Secondly, the secrecy with which this monstrous manifest was compiled, proves that both parties knew it was little short of a criminal conspiracy and would be steadfastly rejected by the people of Europe, if it's contents were ever revealed.

Thirdly, Democracy is supposed to prevent things like this from happening at all, not be the last resort of defence against them, and we should wonder, if Hollande were not held in such low esteem by his electorate, would he have risked the displeasure of his American sponsors by coming out against the deal in this way?

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly of all, would he have voiced his dissent if Greenpeace had not leaked details of what the EU were negotiating? I doubt it and this highlights just how ineffective Democracy is without freedom of information, investigation and exposure of wrongdoing, which used to be more succinctly called a free press, but we waved goodbye to that luxury some time ago.

So Democracy triumphs, sort of, but I guess any victory, however small, is to be welcomed.

UK: A two State solution in deed

As one half of Britain languishes in its inflated house price bubble, the other remains with negative equity a constant threat.

Recent figures suggest that 53% of houses in the UK are still worth less than in 2007.

So what about the proclaimed economic recovery, where is all the growth we're supposed to be celebrating, and where did all that free cash, otherwise known as quantitative easing, go to?

Well isn't that a silly question - only an imbecile, or a Tory beneficiary, would say such a stupid thing, for we all know who the real benefits scroungers are, in modern Britain.

Having brought our economy to the point of bankruptcy, our financial services elite continue to extort tribute from the population at large, with our tacit consent and seemingly unbounded approval.

The New Feudalism of this sorry century, which sees greed rewarded and honesty punished, is just one more factor in the shameful and lengthening list of causes for the imminent cataclysm.

UK: So what do muslims really think?

After the much anticipated, and confidently predicted backlash to Trevor Philips' TV documentary on the state of muslim integration into British society, it's been back to business as usual.

The die-hard liberals have screeched about his racist poll, while the more open-minded among them, although slowly waking to the awful truth, still seek rational and politically acceptable options for dealing with, or at least explaining, the dire situation in which we find ourselves.

Muslim lobby groups have wheeled out their islamophobic band wagon, if indeed it was ever put away. But this time they do have a point, because it is undeniable that there was much wrong with the ICM poll.

The ability of statistics to mislead is well known, though it's not the skewed results that I protest, but the notion that an entire section of humanity can be described by the answers of a small portion of their number, to an even smaller set of questions.

The truth is that many muslims do adjust and adapt to Western society, just as, even in islamic states, many do not adhere to islam's exhortations to murder Christians and Jews. For example, in the Middle East today, the overwhelming majority of soldiers fighting against IS are themselves Muslim. We can easily point to the disenfranchisement and exodus of Christianity in the region as a contributory factor, but the fact remains.

Clearly, the conclusion that most of British society, both muslim and non-muslim, had already made, needed some measure of 'scientific' legitimacy to be aired on mainstream TV, but just what another bunch of "Do you support the imposition of Sharia in the UK?" type of questions was supposed to show, is still a mystery.

Complicity with terrorist ideology is fairly consistent globally, even if some countries are more committed than others, there is a relatively large proportion of the world's population gravitating towards violence, and it is getting larger.

So, a questionnaire which simply acknowledges and localizes that reality, without also attempting to link these global attitudes with their global causes, might do more harm than good, in the way that a person hearing a warning alarm might be concerned that they are being burgled, only to be reassured by the observation "Don't worry, it's only the fire alarm" and then to settle back to whatever they had been previously doing.

We have become accustomed to the notion that recognizing the symptom was the first stage in finding a cure, but recent experiences are less comforting and we should be very wary of complacently expecting our increasingly incompetent governments to do what is right and proper and to protect us from even the most imminent danger.

However well-intentioned or intelligent we believe ourselves to be, we cannot hope to find the right answer if we do not first ask the correct question.

If Channel 4 and Mr. Philips decide to follow up on this latest exercise, perhaps they will embark on a more relevant examination and provide us with answers that most people do not already know.

Let us hope they'll call the next episode:-

What does Islam really instruct?

EU: Dutch are not stupid.

When results were returned from the Ukraine Association referendum, our politicians saw it as part of a general dissatisfaction with the EU, so we can probably rule that out straight away, because they so consistently get everything else wrong, we must wonder why this should be any different.

It is true that many wanted to make this a referendum on the state of our European Union, but would so many have voted against on those grounds alone?

The connection between Mr Poroshenko's assault on East Ukraine, and the downing of MH17 with 193 Dutch fatalities may have been the unspoken, but not forgotten, factor in such a decisive no vote.

The biggest questions about 17th July 2014 are still unanswered.

Coming the day after two Ukrainian SU-25's were hit by rebels, with one destroyed and the other damaged, there is every likelihood that anti-Kyiv forces shot the airliner down, but there is still no reasonable explanation as to why Ukrainian flight control ordered MH17 to descend towards such a dangerous area, a manoeuvre which could easily be interpreted by those on the ground as indicating an imminent aerial assault.

To suggest that a few showers prompted the request is ludicrous enough, especially given that photographic evidence shows a fairly benign day, and in any case, is it not the pilot's responsibility to request changes due to weather?

Another reason proposed, was that air traffic was particularly heavy that day, but as several airlines had already stopped flying over the region, and there were only two other passenger planes in the vicinity, this seems equally unlikely.

Reports that Ukrainian military jets were also flying in the area should not be discounted, just because they may not have fired upon the airliner does not mean they played no part in it's ultimate demise, having probably primed the rebel defence forces to expect an attack.

So it's vital we know, why was MH17 diverted?

The possibility that a 'government' which had installed itself by force (during a coup which replaced an elected pro-Russian administration with an unelected pro-American one of equal or greater corruptive capacity) and then set about bombarding it's own population, displacing a million or more ethnic Russians in the other migration crisis [the one that we never hear about], could also be capable of manufacturing a situation in which a civilian airliner was shot down to discredit their opponents, is no more unreasonable than the alternative 'explanations' on offer.

Whether we find the truth or not, there is real doubt, and despite the willingness of our governments to ignore the possibilities, the Dutch people have shown that there is no place in Europe for the sort of leaders of whom such a question can legitimately be asked.

EU: Merkel's madness

So the deal is (almost) done.

Our leaders continue to placate the islamic state of Turkey with promises, deals and more money, but this is not enough; it seems, now we have joined them in their preparations for ethnically cleansing Kurdistan of it's Kurdish population.

In coordination with their allies in the other islamic state of daesh (or whatever this week's name is for the Religion of War) the Turks are making ready to move into the Eastern provinces under their control, utilising the distraction of this year's 'Summer Terrorist Offensive', currently intended to be Euro 2016 in France,  but no doubt, if our security forces can keep a lid on that event, the islamic murderers will find another.

So what's the big deal?

Visa free access to the EU, that's the big deal.

There are over 14 million Kurds under Turkish control, or should that be occupation? And while the world may not permit another genocide on the scale of that committed on Armenian Christians, Visa free travel will allow thousands or even millions of displaced Kurds to escape (or be driven) into Europe, but will they ever want or be allowed, to return?

Thus it continues, Turkey murders with impunity, and the German chancellor descends further into insanity, dragging the rest of Europe down via the fevered dementia of the latest Reich's leader.

Which century are we living in?

EU: Talking to Turkey

For those who do not know the language of Islam and the last Caliphate, the result of negotiating with this Turkish, or any other islamic state, will be frustrating and largely unproductive.

To sit down, with a modern Western mentality, and expect to attain some honest meeting of minds is both futile and dangerous.

Turkey's Erdogan has a simple aim, to beat the house of Saud to become the next Caliph, and thereby govern and expand Sunni Islam to eventually conquer and rule the entire non-Muslim world.

For our ignorant negotiators, this may sound like the insane megalomaniac ambitions of a fictional James Bond villain, but that is exactly who they are attempting to reason with and as long as they don't get it, their efforts are futile and threaten the very existence of Western society and culture.

Erdogan is a nasty, deceitful piece of work, only marginally less repugnant than his smirking, sniggering little side-kick of a prime minister, and although we need not like those whom we do business with, we do need to at least respect them as leaders that can be trusted and willing members of the human race, but these desert fantasists live in a world of religious expansionism and hatred, and can neither be trusted nor respected.

Like any extortionist, they take what they can, and then come back for more at the first opportunity, but in this case it is far worse than simply paying a ransom to state sponsored hostage takers. By paying Jizya of 3 billion euro, we are only confirming their own madness and emboldening them to commit more crimes.

So perverse has our relationship with these barbarians become, that we are paying them, not to release their migrant hostages, but to keep them where they are.

EU: Don't get fooled again!

Watching George Galloway and Nigel Farage talking European Referendum on RT's Sputnik this morning, brought together the two British politicians with whom I have the most, and least, in common, to discuss the one subject that I am definitely least certain about.

RT have yet to upload the broadcast, so perhaps you can enjoy this instead while reading on.

They also have the rare distinction of being two of Britain's most eloquent and honest politicians, so it should be no surprise, that I was persuaded by their arguments to leave the EU on many points, and can unreservedly say that there is a convincing case to be made for British exit.

But, and please excuse the illusion, but this really is a huge but; there is more to staying or leaving Europe at this time, than at any other, in over 300 years.

We are no longer talking about political niceties or our perceived loss of sovereignty to the EU Commission, what we are (or should) be talking about today, is the very end of Western Europe as we know it.

That may sound extreme, but it is becoming ever more imminent the less it is talked about, and more likely to happen for exactly the same reason.

So, if George and Nigel were recommending a strategic withdrawal, in the manner of Dunkirk, so that we might recoup and gather our forces, and remain an island fortress; that we were leaving, in order to preserve and defend Western Democracy and Freedom, then I would be even more persuaded to join the impending Brexit.

But these two politicians are the exception, not the rule, and I can only see us left defenceless to the cries of 'We're on our own now, and must make allegiances with our 'other' closest allies'.

Does anyone really doubt that would mean TTIP on steroids, and Saudi petrodollars deciding every single issue in Britain tomorrow, rather than just the half they influence today?

Given the choice, and it may actually come to this, I would choose to fight and die as a European, rather than face a slow, dishonourable death by creeping sharia.

Unlike the Battle for Vienna, we now have the enemy in our midst, thanks in no small part to Frau Merkel, but also our own profligate and corrupt elites.

And that is no exaggeration.

If only 1% of the current undocumented and unknown migrant influx, are committed jihadis (and even the most conservative estimates are much higher); and if only 10% of them are jihadi sympathisers (and again, estimates put the numbers as much, much higher), then, do we, or do we not, have a problem of potentially massive proportions?

So my only question for Nigel and George, is this: Were you really talking about a brave and noble exit from the ravages of European bureaucracy, or were you simply suggesting we join the rats as they depart the sinking ship that we once called Civilization?

My God

With all the fuss surrounding our discovery of the gravitational waves that Einstein predicted almost exactly 100 years ago, a little celebratory rhyming seems in order.

First published during a lively debate on the strangest notion, that, despite the koran's continual railing against Christianity in general, and Christians in particular, there might still be substance to islam's claim to somehow share the same God.

Anyway, this was my contribution, and, while not without merit, it was rushed to meet the deadline and I remained unhappy with an adjacent rhyme in the last two stanzas, so that's fixed, and here it is again.

My God stood there before me, 

And proud, He called my name.

Then showed how I might find Him,

In a single drop of rain.

He helped me when I faltered,

Knocked me down when I excelled,

But stood by my bad decisions

And praised when I did well.

Indeed, my God was crucified,

But life is no more tragic,

For He also walked in Buddha's shoes

And was baptized by St. Patrick.

So when you meet your Maker,

As meet Him we all must,

Prepare to meet a loving God,

Both tolerant and just.

Fear not that He'll chastise you, 

Or ask 'How did you come?'

For His welcome is as great,

As from the Father, or the Son.

My God is Revelation,

The whole that we can know,

And Time & Space no more, than just

His footprints in the snow.

So, with a Universe of questions

You'll ask, but only one,

On bended knee, you'll simply say

'My God, what have I done?'

                      Courtesy     www.JihadWatch.org

UK: UNlawful detention

So it's official, the world is upside down.

As a child we used to wonder, what it was like to stand Down Under.

Well now we know, it doesn't feel much different, but nothing looks the same.

So transfixed was I by the morning press briefing (courtesy RT) that I turned up an hour late for work. There was too much to write about just now, but I have to mark the day.

A bevy of uninformed and blatantly biased 'journalists' attempted to draw a rash response from the excellent UN spokesperson who eventually read out the formal statement to them, as if to children who could not read; so rubbish is the reporting that I can't even find his name, but I'll return with a link asap.

One consistent theme of the questioning was that Assange could not be illegally detained, because he entered the embassy voluntarily and could choose to walk out at any time.

The splendid Frenchman kept reminding them, that HMG. has officially declared, Assange would be detained if he left, but they just could not/would not get it.

As a native born Australian, Julian Assange must be struggling with life on the 'upside' of the planet, and I'm sure he has many questions for us, though there's one in particular will be troubling him just now.

So answer if you can: What better definition of prison is there, than a place surrounded by walls and guards, whose job it is to arrest those who try to leave?

UK: Death and diplomacy

To declare my interest upfront, I have neither love nor hatred for Vladimir Putin.

I also know many Eastern Europeans who fear and distrust him intensely, but he is nonetheless leader of about 150 million people in the largest geographical country on Earth.

But anyone viewing the latest BBC documentary about an alleged secret stash of millions, or was it billions, of dollars, would be forgiven for thinking that they were witnessing a story about the leader of a Mexican drug cartel.

Now quite where Mr Putin finds the time and anonymity to accumulate such wealth, while running one of the most important countries on our shrinking planet, I have no idea, and it was not explained.

How such a high profile figure could hope to get away with this wealth, or how or where he would spend it, presumably during his enforced retirement, was also left unexplained.

Looking at Russian history, and the way they deal with despots, I suggest that if such dealings had happened and were discovered, said retirement would be a rather short one.

Regardless of what we might call a harmless bit of fun at this powerful man's expense, it came barely a week after a UK public enquiry concluded that Mr. Putin had 'probably' personally ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko here in London in 2006.

Now coincidence is one thing, but timing is entirely another, and added to a string of smears and slanders over recent years, it is becoming impossible to take much of this at all seriously.

Without excusing what he may, or may not, be doing, I am bound to ask which president, prime minister or other autocrat or leader, has not benefited from their time in office?

What really stinks here, is not the accusation or insinuation in itself, but that there are ways and means of making such claims, and I am old enough to remember when terms like 'Person in the Highest Office' and 'Most senior Government Official' were used to point to those we wished to accuse.

At a time when Syria and Ukraine are top of our shared agenda, it is impossible to see how talks cannot have been poisoned 'probably' intentionally, by such crass and undiplomatic language.

Ireland: Was justice done?

So common sense prevailed, but was justice really served?

Pastor James McConnell was acquitted, but his name has been besmirched, and the judge, in releasing him, has nonetheless declared his comments offensive.

Even though he declared islam to be satanic and heathen, police refused to prosecute under the banner of hate speech, presumably because the good pastor was simply being honest and accurate, and there is no libel in the truth.

So the instrument used to attempt a conviction, was that his remarks about not trusting Muslims were offensive, but surely common sense also demands that a man be cautious of those who might murder him for his views?

It is clear that there are texts within their creed that they themselves find offensive, but would it not be better for them to remove these passages, rather than condemn those who comment on such iniquities?

How they reconcile their ancient prejudices within the civilized world is their own concern, and in a free society we cannot legislate a person's right to be offended, but this licence should not extend to tarnishing the reputation of the truthful.

Available Here