Female Genital Mutilation

Two interesting observations in this article. Firstly, religious beliefs of men override human rights for women. Secondly, Sheik Badri really gets around when he can make a statement that Egyptian woman have bigger clitorises than other women - thus needing to have them 'cut back to normal size'. There are, of course, many more observations which could be made but who wants to fill an already well used brain with yet more male rhetoric about what god wants for women?

This religious claptrap backs up the desire of many inferior males to control and hurt women using (in this case) religious sanctions to do so. Very few women realise how many men are sexually nutty until they come up against a rapist, or a paedophile, or a voyeur, or a coprophiliac, or a sadist in one of his many forms.

The advocates of female genital mutilation (or infibulation) who hide behind religion and cite their god given right to inflict such cruelty on female children must be the craziest, and the most frightened of female sexuality of all those men who lack basic masculinity. That basic masculinity is the desire to mate with (and the confidence of being able to do so) a woman they are able to satisfy sexually. The male fear of another, better male cutting them out, underpins the whole female genital mutilation process. It is a 'well, I can't do anything about my own pathetic self so I'll make sure she doesn't know anything about it.'

Women don't suffer from penis envy - men do.

Vaclav Havel 'Living in Truth'

Ideology, in creating a bridge of excuses between the system and the individual, spans the abyss between the aims of the system and the aims of life. It pretends that the requirements of the system derive from the requirements of life. It is a world of appearances trying to pass for reality. p 44

If ideology was originally a bridge between the system and the individual, then the moment he or she steps on to this bridge it becomes at the same time a bridge between the system and the individual as a component of the system.

That is, if ideology originally facilitated (by acting outwardly) the constitution of power by serving as a psychological excuse, then from the moment that excuse is accepted, it constitutes power inwardly, becoming an active component of that power. p 46

Yet, as we have seen, ideology becomes at the same time an increasingly important component of power, a pillar providing it with both excusatory legitimacy and an innner coherence. As this aspect grows in importance, and as it gradually loses touch with reality, it acquires a peculiar but very real strength. It becomes reality itself...

Increasingly the virtuosity of the ritual becomes more important that the reality hidden behind it...

Reality does not shape theory, but rather the reverse. Thus power draws closer to ideology that it does to reality; it draws its strength from theory and becomes dependent on it...power begins to serve ideology. p 49

Excerpts - Vaclav Havel

Seldom in recent times, it seems, has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support any thing at any time, as long as it brings them some advantage: to unprincipled and spineless men prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbours' and their own honour for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power.

In view of this, it is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied, more than ever before, by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans and men of dubious record, in short, by typical collaborators, men, that is, with a special gift for persuading themselves that their dirty work is a way of rescuing something, or, at least, of preventing still worse men from stepping into their shoes. p 8


In democratic societies with a traditional parliamentary system of government, political opposition is understood as a political force on the level of actuual power (most frequently a party or coalition of parties) which is not a part of the government.
It offers an alternative political programme, it has ambitions to govern, and it is recognised and respected by the government in power as a natural element in the political life of the country. It seeks to spread its influence by political means, and competes for power on the basis of agree-upon legal regulations.

In addition to this form of opposition, there exists the phenomenon of the 'extra parliamentary opposition', which again consists of forces organised more or less on the level of actual power, but which operate outside the rules created by the system, and which employ different means than are usual within that framework.

In classical dictatorships, the term opposition is understood to mean the political forces which have also come out with an alternative political programme. They operate either legally or on the outer limits of legality, but in any case they cannot compete for power within the limits of some agreed-upon regulations. Or the term opposition may be applied to forces preparing for a violent confrontation with the ruling power, or who feel themselves to be in this state of confrontation already, such as various guerilla groups or liberation movements. pp 72-73

From - Living in Truth Faber and Faber 1986

Are we Surprised? I'm Not.

Books
The Fallaci Code

Oriana Fallaci asks: Is Muslim immigration to Europe a conspiracy?
By BRENDAN BERNHARD
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:00 pm

Oriana Fallaci Photo by Francesco ScavulloIn The Force of Reason, the controversial Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci illuminates one of the central enigmas of our time. How did Europe become home to an estimated 20 million Muslims in a mere three decades?
How did Islam go from being a virtual non-factor to a religion that threatens the preeminence of Christianity on the Continent? How could the most popular name for a baby boy in Brussels possibly be Mohammed? Can it really be true that Muslims plan to build a mosque in London that will hold 40,000 people? That Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam are close to having Muslim majorities? How was Europe, which was saved by the U.S. in world wars I and II, and whose Muslim Bosnians were rescued by the U.S. as recently as 1999, transformed into a place in which, as Fallaci puts it, “if I hate Americans I go to Heaven and if I hate Muslims I go to Hell?”
In attempting to answer these questions, the author, who is stricken with cancer and has been hounded by death threats and charges of “Islamophobia” (she is due to go on trial in France this June), has combined history with episodes of riveting firsthand reportage into a form that reads like a real-life conspiracy thriller.
If The Force of Reason sells a lot of copies, which it almost certainly will (800,000 were sold in Italy alone, and the book is in the top 100 on Amazon ), it will be not only because of the heat generated by her topic, but also because Fallaci speaks for the ordinary reader. There is no one she despises more than the intellectual “cicadas,” as she calls them — “You see them every day on television; you read them every day in the newspapers” — who deny they are in the midst of a cultural, political and existential war with Islam, of which terrorism is the flashiest, but ultimately least important component. Nonetheless, to give the reader a taste of what Muslim conquest can be like, in her first chapter, Fallaci provides a brief tour of the religion’s bloodiest imperial episodes and later does an amusing job of debunking some of its more exaggerated claims to cultural and scientific greatness.
The book is also animated by a world-class journalist’s dismay that she could have missed the story of her lifetime for as long as she did. In the 1960s and ’70s, when she was a Vietnam War correspondent and a legendarily ferocious interviewer going mano a mano with the likes of Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, Fallaci was simply too preoccupied with the events of the moment to notice that an entirely different narrative was rapidly taking shape — namely, the transformation of the West. There were clues, certainly. As when, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her (while a bodyguard aimed a submachine gun at her head) that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”
Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens … In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.” It is a low-level but deadly war that extends across the planet, as any newspaper reader can see.
Fallaci is not the first person to ponder the rapidity of the ongoing Muslim transformation of Europe. As the English travel writer Jonathan Raban wrote in Arabia: A Journey Through the Labyrinth (1979), in the mid-1970s Arabs seemed to arrive in London almost overnight. “One day Arabs were a remote people … camping out in tents with camels … the next, they were neighbors.” On the streets of West London appeared black-clad women adorned with beaked masks that made them look “like hooded falcons.” Dressed for the desert (and walking precisely four steps ahead of the women), Arab men bestrode the sidewalks “like a crew of escaped film extras, their headdresses aswirl on the wind of exhaust fumes.”
Writers far better acquainted with the Muslim world than Raban have been equally perplexed. In 1995, the late American novelist Paul Bowles, a longtime resident of Tangier, told me that he could not understand why the French had allowed millions of North African Muslims into their country. Bowles had chosen to live among Muslims for most of his life, yet he obviously considered it highly unlikely that so many of them could be successfully integrated into a modern, secular European state.
Perhaps Bowles would have been interested in this passage from Fallaci’s book: “In 1974 [Algerian President] Houari Boumedienne, the man who ousted Ben Bella three years after Algerian independence, spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations. And without circumlocutions he said: ‘One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.’”
Such a bald statement of purpose by a nation’s president before an international forum seems incredible. Yet even in British journalist Adam LeBor’s A Heart Turned East (1997), a work of profound, almost supine sympathy for the plight of Muslim immigrants in the West, a London-based mullah is quoted as saying, “We cannot conquer these people with tanks and troops, so we have got to overcome them by force of numbers.” In fact, such remarks are commonplace. Just this week, Mullah Krekar, a Muslim supremacist living in Oslo, informed the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten that Muslims would change Norway, not the other way around. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes,” he said. “By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.”
In other words, Europe will be conquered by being turned into “Eurabia,” which is what Fallaci believes it is well on the way to becoming. Leaning heavily on the researches of Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fallaci recounts in fascinating detail the actual origin of the word “Eurabia,” which has now entered the popular lexicon. Its first known use, it turns out, was in the mid-1970s, when a journal of that name was printed in Paris (naturally), written in French (naturally), and edited by one Lucien Bitterlin, then president of the Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity and currently the Chairman of the French-Syrian Friendship Association. Eurabia (price, five francs) was jointly published by Middle East International (London), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva) and the European Coordinating Committee of the Associations for Friendship with the Arab World, which Fallaci describes as an arm of what was then the European Economic Community, now the European Union. These entities, Fallaci says, not mincing her words, were the official perpetrators “of the biggest conspiracy that modern history has created,” and Eurabia was their house organ.
Briefly put, the alleged plot was an arrangement between European and Arab governments according to which the Europeans, still reeling from the first acts of PLO terrorism and eager for precious Arabian oil made significantly more precious by the 1973 OPEC crisis, agreed to accept Arab “manpower” (i.e., immigrants) along with the oil. They also agreed to disseminate propaganda about the glories of Islamic civilization, provide Arab states with weaponry, side with them against Israel and generally toe the Arab line on all matters political and cultural. Hundreds of meetings and seminars were held as part of the “Euro-Arab Dialogue,” and all, according to the author, were marked by European acquiescence to Arab requests. Fallaci recounts a 1977 seminar in Venice, attended by delegates from 10 Arab nations and eight European ones, concluding with a unanimous resolution calling for “the diffusion of the Arabic language” and affirming “the superiority of Arab culture.”
While the Arabs demanded that Europeans respect the religious, political and human rights of Arabs in the West, not a peep came from the Europeans about the absence of freedom in the Arab world, not to mention the abhorrent treatment of women and other minorities in countries like Saudi Arabia. No demand was made that Muslims should learn about the glories of western civilization as Europeans were and are expected to learn about the greatness of Islamic civilization. In other words, according to Fallaci, a substantial portion of Europe’s cultural and political independence was sold off by a coalition of ex-communists and socialist politicians. Are we surprised? Fallaci isn’t. In 1979, she notes, “the Italian or rather European Left had fallen in love with Khomeini just as now it has fallen in love with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat.”
Considerably less intemperate than her last book on the topic of radical Islam, the volcanically angry The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason is despairing, but often surprisingly funny. (“The rage and the pride have married and produced a sturdy son: the disdain,” she writes with characteristic wit.) And, Fallaci being Fallaci, it is occasionally over the top and will no doubt be deeply offensive to many, particularly when, in a postscript the book might have been better off without, she claims that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Nonetheless, the voice and warmth and humor of the author light up its pages, particularly when she takes a leaf out of Saul Bellow’s Herzog by firing off impassioned letters to the famous both living and dead. She is savage about the Left, the “Peace” movement (war is a fundamental, if regrettable, condition of life, she states), the Catholic Church, the media and, of course, Islam itself, which she considers theological totalitarianism and a deadly threat to the world. She is much more optimistic about America than Europe, citing the bravery of New Yorkers who celebrated New Year’s Eve in Times Square despite widely publicized terrorism threats, but here one feels that she is clutching at straws. Though Fallaci now lives in New York, little amity has been extended to her by her peers since the post-9/11 publication of The Rage and the Pride, and she remains almost as much of a media pariah here as she does in Europe. The major difference is that we’re not putting her on trial.
As that Norwegian Mullah told Aftenposten, “Our way of thinking … will prove more powerful than yours.” One hopes he’s wrong, but if he is, it will be ordinary Americans and Europeans, including courageous Arab-Americans like L.A. resident Wafa Sultan and the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali (two women openly challenging Islamist supremacism), who prove him so, and not our intellectual classes (artists, pundits, filmmakers, actors, writers …). Many of the latter, consumed by Bush-hatred and cultural self-loathing, are perilously close to becoming today’s equivalent of the great Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun, who so hated the British Empire that he sided with the Nazis in World War II, to his everlasting shame. The Force of Reason, at the very least, is a welcome and necessary antidote to the prevailing intellectual atmosphere.
Staff writer Brendan Bernhard is the author of White Muslim: From L.A. to New York to Jihad, a study of converts to Islam in the West (Melville House).

Abortion

Long before the pill or legal abortion was available Marie Stopes tried to educate lower class women about birth control and sexual hygiene and was jailed for it. I remember one Catholic bishop being quoted as saying (I will never find the ref) "if women are given such information men will never know who their children belong to..." ( as though these lower class women who were producing a baby every two years was capable of hunting down illicit love affairs or something equally as silly). As a consequence many illegal abortions were carried out and many deaths ensued. Forbidding abortion has never stopped the wealthy from having access to it, nor has it stopped the poor from procuring it.

If a woman has become pregnant as a result of rape, or if the pregnancy endangers her life or mental health, or if she is mentally retarded so as to be incapable of raising the child, or if the foetus is diagnosed as having no viability as a fully functioning human being, or if the pregnancy is a result of incest, or if the woman is not yet a woman but a child in the eyes of the law, these are now considered to be reasons for medically induced abortion. Here the problem begins. The Vatican solves it by saying there are absolutely no grounds for abortion and that all these women will go through their pregnancy and give birth. In fact, the Vatican goes further and states that if the birth endangers the life of the mother, all efforts will go to save the life of the child. (Hence, before I was twelve years of age, I knew personally two women who had died as a result of this religious interference in secular and sexual matters. One woman left five children, and the other left nine. I may have known another but I could never find out the truth and anyway the newborn was buried with her.)

At the same time New Zealand (pre-pill and pre-legal abortion - I can only write about the country I know about) had four religious charitable organisations set up in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, where 'unmarried mothers' went to have their babies. These organisations could take up to 14 of these women at a time and were full for the 1950s and 1960s. (Do the maths.) The unmarried mothers were usually aged between 12 and 17. The newborn was taken from the mother at birth - although I know one woman who was forced to breastfeed her child for two weeks. By the mid-1970s so many of these 'adopted' children were appearing before the courts in such numbers and in such various stages of mental and physical disintegration that even the judges were aware of a huge social problem. It was deemed a child was better off with its blood mother and so legislation was passed to introduce a benefit which would enable the mother to keep the child. Another social problem ensued when women chose the 'unmarried mother' status as a career choice. DNA testing opened the way to identify the father of the child and to make him pay rather than the taxpayer. This has brought a new sense of responsibility to the male who is now not told to 'sow his wild oats' and that 'boys will be boys' but rather to 'be careful' and although he is still not being careful enough I am optimistic that this will happen.

Herrnstein and Murray (The Bell Curve 1994) state unequivocably that 'white illegitimacy is an overwhelmingly lower class phenomenon' (p. 521). (Herrnstein and Murray did not even touch on the illegitimacy rate in other races because of cultural relativism.) While it has been useful to have such cannon fodder available in previous centuries this is now not the case. Here are some facts from The Bell Curve relating to the increase in population from the segment considered least desirable to breed excessively:

Working class parents are:
*Most concerned about respectability
*Punish more impulsively
*Punish when parents need the relief, not when it is more likely to do the child most good
*Have low education, are more authoritarian and rigid
*Have low levels of reasoning complexity
*Have vague and limited ideas about what children need emotionally and physically
*Are seldom able to see things from the point of view of others
*Cannot take children's need into consideration
*Cannot apply good judgement
*Are incompetent as parents

The problem: Does society press upon these people and make abortion a more favourable option than more and yet more children? Or does society ban abortion and bear the cost of a population explosion in the most unwanted - the results of incest, motherhood in the very young, the mentally retarded? Banning abortion will not affect the more intelligent and better off. There will not be a population explosion among these people.

If it seems I am making a case for eugenics, the case has already been made by in vitro and DNA scientists. My support for legal abortion comes not from religious, nor from idealogical beliefs, but from the misery I have seen caused by human fallibility. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it should be her choice.

War - we do it because it's fun

from Testament of Youth by Vera Brittain (p 291)

'It is, I think, this glamour, this magic, this incomparable keying up of the spirit in a time of mortal conflict, which constitute the pacifist's real problem - a problem still incompletely imagined and still quite unsolved. The causes of war are always falsely represented; its honour dishonest and its glory meretricious, but the challenge to spiritual endurance, the intense sharpening of all the senses, the vitalising consciousness of common peril for a common end, remain to allure those boys and girls who have just reached the age when love and friendship and adventure call more persistently than at any later time. The glamour may be the mere delirium of fever which, as soon as war is over, dies out and shows itself for the will-o' the wisp that it is, but while it lasts no emotion known to man seems as yet to have quite the compelling power of this enlarged vitality.'

Everything Not Forbidden is Compulsory

The perversions of the egalitarian ideal that began with the French Revolution and have been so plentiful in the twentieth century are not accidents of history or produced by technical errors in implementation. Something more inevitable is at work. People who are free to behave differently from one another in the important affairs of daily life inevitably generate the social and economic inequalities that egalitarianism seeks to suppress...

To reduce inequality of conditions, the state must impose greater and greater uniformity... Egalitarian tyrannies, whether the Jacobite or Leninist variety are worse than inhumane. They are inhuman.

The same atmosphere prevails on a smaller scale wherever 'equality' comes to serve as the basis for a diffuse moral outlook. Consider the many small tyrannies in America's contemporary universities where it has become objectionable to say that some people are superior to other people in any way that is relevant to life in society. Nor is this outlook confined to judgements about people. In art, literature, ethics and cultural norms, differences are not to be judged. Such relativism has become the moral high ground for many modern commentators on life and culture...

...The moral outlook that has become associated with equality has spawned a vocabulary of its own. Discrimination, once a useful word with a praiseworthy meaning, is now almost always used in a pejorative sense. Racism, sexism, ageism, elitism – all are common parlance, and their meanings continue to spread, blotting up more and more semantic territory...

...The ideology of equality has stunted the range of moral dialogue to triviality. In daily life conversations, the lessons taught in public schools, the kind of screenplays or newspaper features that people choose to write – the moral ascendancy of equality has made it difficult to use concepts such as virtue, excellence, beauty and – above all – truth.

The Bell Curve. R J Herrnstein & Charles Murray, The Free Press 1994 (pp532-533)

What Fools These Mortals Be...

When two or more population groups, each with its own special, narrow and unadaptable culture and usually with a distinctive language has been, by the scale of change in human affairs jammed together, a sort of social dementia ensues. In the absence of a common idea of community, civilised motives will give way to hostilities. These 'hostilities' are not a 'maybe' or a 'perhaps'. They will happen. Historically such 'hostilities' have happened before, not once but many times in many different parts of the world. They have happened in Turkey, in England, in Ireland, in the Balkans, in Russia – in practically every country in the world. They have happened from conflicts of religion, or ideologies, or races, and more recently again with religion. Wouldn't you think people would have learned from history not to try doing it yet again?

The politicians and bureaucrats who advocated more or less free for all Muslim immigration absolutely cannot admit they were wrong in such advocacy, as such an admission would make them targets for both sides - that is to say - from the native population and from the immigrants. It is more to their advantage to introduce legislation to ban public discussion on the issue and to keep insisting there is no problem, or that the problem lies with the host population. If there is a change of government and a corresponding hardening attitude towards immigration and appeasement, these same politicians and bureaucrats will keep insisting (while out of office) that they had no problem but that the new government has introduced the problems. If there is not a change of government, these people will continue to do what they have been doing until the whole system collapses, whereupon they will follow the time honoured tradition of fleeing the country. Be sure this is what they will do. Every one of them will have an escape route already planned with perhaps an established home (at present called a 'holiday home') and plenty of taxpayers' money in the bank. An even worse case scenario is that hostilities will begin while these people are still in office, at which they will be able to declare a state of emergency and remain to complete their mischief – the imposition of a socialist dictatorship perhaps? For the good of the people, perhaps? Apart from looking after their own skins, do they know what they are doing?

Would integration of Muslim immigrants have been more successful if the freeloading mullahs and imams were not preaching war against the western world? Once again, foolish leadership is a problem. The mullahs and imams, like western politicians and bureaucrats, do not really have the good of the population in their hearts. They want money and power. Conversely, the populations of the world want peace, and the ability to raise their children to be well educated, healthy, and prosperous adults. I believe this.

Islam, like Catholicism, interferes too much in women's sexual lives. Women do not want to have uninterrupted childbearing. Most women would like to have between one and four children. Some women choose to have none. As women do the childbearing and rearing, I think it should be left to them to make the decision on family size. That the rich get richer and the poor get children is a truism. Families of eight and ten children deprive mostly the children but this, along with maternal health, child rearing ability and the financial situation of a family is not taken into account at all by these religious men. Part of their power is the control of cannon fodder. Thus, the more children the better. They also do not encourage people to think for themselves, citing religious tracts from whatever religious book they say they represent. They claim to be in touch with a Higher Diety, but they can't tell you if it will rain tomorrow. Ha! What would Jesus say if He came suddenly came back? Who do you think He would commend, and who would He condemn?

In Memory of Benjamin

Today is the third anniversary of the death of Benjamin Raymond, my grandson, who died at the age of twenty, alone, suddenly and violently, in a car accident.

I cannot think that you have gone away.
You loved the earth – and light lit up your eyes,
And flickered in your smile that would surmise
Death as a song, a poem or a play.

You were reborn afresh with every day,
And baffled fortune in some new disguise.
Ah! can it perish when the body dies,
Such youth, such love, such passion to be gay?

We shall not see you come to us and leave
A conqueror – nor catch on fairy wing
Some slender fancy – nor new wonders weave
Upon the loom of your imagining.
The world is wearier, grown dark to grieve
A child that was a pilgrim and a king.

Winifred Holtby (1898 - 1935)

Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundation fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended
And saved the sum of things for pay.

A E Housman

An Open Letter

An open letter to the traitors who would destroy Western European civilisation:

Do you think about what you are doing, or are you just on the same old politically correct trip you started when you began your career as a professional protester/freedom fighter/conservationist/marijuana smoking/human rights activist/Che Guevara t-shirt wearing/alternative lifestyle drop out from University? You politicians and bureaucrats, you lawyers and you dishonest seekers after money and power, isn't it really all about getting paid for interfering in people's lives, or ambulance chasing, or picking holes in systems, anything rather than dig ditches, which is what you are intellectually most suited to do? Be honest. Has socialism, your preferred ideology no matter what you say, as the answer to the ills of war and starvation worked anywhere in the world where it has been the ruling ideology? You profess to abhor war, yet you yourselves wage war on a system to which those from war torn countries run for protection and security. You do not wage war openly – you hide behind masks and your targets are innocent people. You pontificate on the wrongs of Europe and America, yet that is where you elect to live. You sleep soundly in your bed at night after plotting yet more mischief in which people will die, and you forgive yourself as this is an 'ideological' battle leading to the common good of millions. You are no better than any of the murderous tyrants and dictators you worship as the model for your life. You are frightened of capitalism aren't you? Capitalism means you would have to work for your daily bread, instead of travelling the world in search of more methods of coercion. If you had to work for a living, how would you get the time to bond with like minded seditious dead souls who advocate the thievery of freedom from the common herd, that very same common herd which provides you with medical attention, carries you from one destination to another, cleans the streets, sews your clothing, keeps you warm in winter and cool in summer, grows your food, and, in fact, keeps you alive? That the common herd now does all these things willingly is not enough for you – you want to enslave them and force them to do these things.

In your advocating of multiculturalism, are you really prepared to give up your Western European heritage in favour of a seventh century religion devised by a hallucinating epileptic? Are you going to give up freedom of speech and the Westminster system in favour of Sharia law? If you get it, it is what you deserve you bunch of tendentious, acromegalic casuistrists. You have encouraged the destruction of a civilisation inherited from the ancient Greeks and you have nothing to replace it. You have helped to bring this about. Will you be happy when the architecture and the art and literature of centuries are destroyed by gangs of mad Savonaralas? Do you think this won't happen? It may not, but if it does, it will be thanks to you, and there will be such slaughter as you, in your madness to change human nature, did not think was possible. If you think you can get into bed with and make deals with mullahs and imams, you are wrong. Why would they trust those who were traitors to their own race and religion?

Do you think it will work if you educate the young to believe that what they see they do not see, that what they hear they do not hear, that what they feel they do not feel? If so you are wrong. All humans need their history, they need a sense of belonging, they need their language. They want to be with their own kind. You thought you could destroy that and raise instead a race of obedient, passive, hard working drones. What you have been doing has already been found out and you and yours will be vilified in the centuries to come, before your name and your like is erased from memory. You may cry for mercy like Dr Faustus but like Dr Faustus, Mephistopheles will come for you as well.

Do you know the progenitors of socialism? Do you know what sort of people they were? I can tell you, they were just like yourself. They were hypocrites. You think H G Wells had the answer? Wells wanted to get rid of all religions but you traitors, you are too cowardly, too intellectually weak in the head and far too politically correct to destroy any religion other than your own. You don't believe in religion yourself, but you can see what an effective force it is in the control of people. You go to what you perceive as the one most easy to control the people, the one with the least freedom for the people, and you see that as the framework upon which you can build your world of robots. You don't really believe in freedom of choice, do you? You believe in force.

Do you really believe that by targeting the young and depriving them of their heritage and nationality in favour of a horde of religious fanatics who have contributed nothing to the advances of civilisation that you will create something good? You malignant mischief makers enjoy the benefits every day of a system you want to destroy. Are you so stupid you think you can create good out of evil? You have set up education programmes for the young of your own country so that they may be coerced into your politically correct way of thinking, you have permitted cultural excesses of cruelty to be practised by members of other cults, sects, or religions in the excuse that this is morally relative, you rush to save primitive practices and languages, but at the same time you deride the humanistic practices and corrupt the language which gave you the freedom and ability to carry out your nefarious schemes. Under the guise of benevolence and liberalism you plot to destroy a tried and true method of civilisation for which millions have died - but not you, you purveyors of false freedoms.

You scream for foreign causes and alien tyrants, you shriek praise of totalitarian systems of whatever kind, and you seek to undermine everything which has enabled you to become what you are. Daily you seek to pervert the meaning of democracy whilst preaching your socialistic and politically correct excesses in the name of that same democracy. Your malignancy has permeated the heart of what was once a good and strong civilisation.

Remember this quislings. If you are a woman and Western civilisation collapses you will lose the right to learn to read and write, to inherit, to practise birth control, or to have legal representation in any issue pertaining to your life. If you are a man and you think you will be better off, think again. Go to your history books and read. Read about medieval England and villeins and serfs. Read about the life expectancy. Read about the rise of socialism in Russia after the Russian revolution. Read about hunger, and the illnesses which abounded, including smallpox and tuberculosis. Western European civilisation fought these things and many more of the scourges that afflicted humanity for over two millenia and in many cases – it won. We have got this far. Don't let us go back in the name of any 'ism. What we have now is good, much better than anything human beings have ever had in living history. Don't give it away to placate a bunch of sanctimonious ne'er do wells whose only talent is that of destruction.

Pentagon's New Map re Globalisation

I found this interesting reading. Globalisation has lots of opposition but the countries which are in are sure better to live in than the countries which are out.