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?