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.