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

Ireland: The truth on trial

The first week of 2016 is about to tell us something of what we can expect in the coming months.

Pastor James McConnell returns for judgement after standing trial for stating that he did not trust people who adhere to Sharia law.

Now anyone who knows what the good pastor was talking about, will also know that he was simply stating the obvious truth about a doctrine rooted in deceit and cruelty, but it seems that is enough to put the 78 year old preacher in the dock.

So, while the world awaits the next attack from the very people he warned us about, it is comforting to note that the case was brought about by a supporter of IS in Iraq who will not be charged with praising the mass expulsions and murders in Mosul, so free speech is not dead yet, for some people at least.

Available Here