Translate

Thursday, 31 December 2015

Questions about Christianity Alister McGrath does not address


Alister McGrath: Why faith makes sense. The Highfield Lectures (Edited) from ian.wyllie@exior.co.uk on Vimeo.



  1. How is the idea that Christ is simultaneously God Himself and His son intelligible and coherent?
  2. How is Christianity more intelligible and coherent than Judaism and/or Islam?
  3. How is Christianity doing compared to Judaism and Islam?
  4. Has Christianity become associated with the ideology of the West who want to spread the abomination of gay marriage all over the world?
  5. Both C S Lewis and J R Tolkein are children's writers. Why would any intelligent adult think these two writers of children's fiction have anything interesting or authoritative to say about Christianity?
  6. McGrath seems to be saying that it is just a matter of choosing the story you prefer. The exercise of reason must surely be more than just such an individual and subjective preference.
  7. The best stories of the Bible are in the Old Testament. http://www.learningscriptures.info/bible-stories-old-testament/If you agree with this, does that mean you should choose Judaism as your religion? 
  8. There are no good stories at all in the New Testament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_stories
  9. What about stories in the Koran?
  10. Should you choose your religion on the basis of the stories you like to hear or choose your religion on the rules you think society should best live by?
  11. Is Christianity the religion of the neocons, which Islamic State has more or less declared war against?

Tuesday, 29 December 2015

The sagacious Paul Craig Roberts gives advice to Western politicians they would do well to heed

http://thedailycoin.org/?p=55858



7:48 "Trump's popularity is because he is not associated with the political sector ... not that he knows what to do or has any advisers who know what to do."

"Political change cannot come within the current political system."

10th minute - Marine Le Pen would either be assassinated or her character assassinated. Dominique Strauss-Kahn was taken out.

12th minute - Jeremy Corbyn faces mutiny from the Armed Forces if he were to become Prime Minister.

Left-wing parties behave like right-wing parties once they are in office.

Capitalism turns everything into a commodity that can be bought and sold.

18th minute - "The law is only applied to the helpless."

American people incapable of recognising leadership.




1st minute "Nixon was removed." He was accused of selling out to the Commies because he was too much of peace-nik, and did all sorts of things for ordinary people eg EPA. It is so easy to stifle a good President. JFK taken out for the same reason.

5th minute - Kerry, Putin, Syria.

13th minute - "The Neocons have been going for decades. They are in the Pentagon, the military and the media." John Kerry eating crow.

16th minute - Kissinger and Brzezinski were Cold Warriors, but they are not neocons. The neocons are actually evil.

17th minute - Putin keeps asking the US "Do you know what you have done?" Not only did the US create ISIS, they are buying their oil.

18th minute - The Pentagon have run 16 war games and lost every single one of them to Russia.

19th minute- US weaponry doesn't even work. The Russian stuff works.

21st minute - "If the Russians were neocons they could wipe us off the face of the earth with no cost to themselves." They keep relying on diplomacy and telling the truth.

22nd minute - "The Russians will stick with diplomacy as long as they can risk trusting America."

23rd minute - Goldman Sachs might just tell Hillary to lay off the rhetoric, if there is someone intelligent there and doesn't want WW3.






4th minute - Kerry should demand Obama fire Victoria Nuland.

12th minute - Nothing in it for the US vassal states of the Europe when Russia finally loses patience.

13th minute - Stampede out of NATO.

14th minute - Refugee crisis being blamed on the mainstream parties.

15th minute - Neocons now turning their attention towards confronting China.

17th minute - "We must acknowledge our problems. You to be an American in Washington or in the media to be that stupid."

18th minute - "My readership is three times the New York Times'. The United States becoming a despised place. Everything has turned against us. We are a house of cards without friends with bought and paid for puppets whose allegiance is now in doubt." It is a  joke that we are a superpower, that we have values, that we are a democracy. We are the most despised and the least trusted."

21st minute - "American people are clueless. They live in The Matrix."

22nd minute - "Cui bono? The neocons. 9/11 is the new Pearl Harbour. When things have quietened down, something more happens eg Charlie Hebdon, San Bernardino .... "

23rd minute "Putin in complete control. Obama backing Kerry to calm things down. Then we'll probably have another false flag attack. They will blame ISIS or Russia. Every neocon is a fanatic."

27th minute - "McCain a low-grade moron"

Friday, 18 December 2015

What can be done to save America from its politicians and political system?




Nobody is really in charge of America because the political classes in reality have very little power and are at the beck and call of the lobbyists.

Can you imagine a dictator being told what to do by the arms manufacturers? He would soon tell them where to go.

It has always been a fallacy that democracies are always more peaceful than dictatorships. Athens was not exactly peaceable, nor did its democracy last very long. Whatever the nature of the government, it will find itself wanting to assert itself, show off and posture when it feels itself to be weak and losing power.  Failing empires who call themselves democracies are just a likely to do this as any petty tyrant in a tinpot dictatorship. Think of short men who take on larger than life personalities to over-compensate for their lack of height.

In any group 51% of its members are stupider than the other 49%. In a democracy, we submit to this majority of the stupid.

Indeed, a democracy only works if all voters are wise, and we already know that most voters are venal, morally corrupt, ignorant, intellectually lazy and easily led.

A wise ruler with wise advisers would best be able to keep the lobbyists and other enemies of society at bay, but not members of a political class riven with factionalism trying to do outdo each other while worrying about their status and the income that needs to go with it.

Can you imagine, for example, a Caliph being at the beck and call of his arms manufacturers? Granted, Hitler and Mussolini were hardly peaceable in their urgency to build their empires, but then again Franco had no interest in foreign adventures nor did Salazar. The Chinese one-party system would be best for the Americans. It will be interesting to see the debates they will have when they decide to change their constitution and abolish their oligarchy.

Dictator Trump would be a hopeful start, since the Americans already clearly adore him.





Does China Produce More Competent Leaders Than America?

https://www.facebook.com/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense-353471931432677/?fref=ts

Louis Theroux and Anjem Choudary discuss Islam, extremism and ISIS

Michael Voris: "The Catholic Church has a homosexual priest problem."



This mindset — this lackluster, lukewarm, status quo, never-rock-the-boat approach — is destroying the Church from within. Men like Cdl. Dolan are allowed to pass over scandals and ignore them because they know they will never be called out or challenged by those milquetoast lackeys more concerned about their careers and money than the truth and souls.

This is exactly how the whole homosexual priest sex abuse scandal went on for so long, this same attitude. Homosexual men have infiltrated the Church for decades, and whether they intended to or not — some did probably, others not — they have been part of a destruction of the Faith that staggers the mind. And their accomplices among the hierarchy are even more staggering. The very men consecrated to protect and love the sheep have abandoned them for every corruption conceivable. The silence around this evil, the participation in these evils, the refusal and denial of so many regarding this evil, shows how deeply the diabolical has dug its way into the Church. 


https://www.facebook.com/Michael-Voris-for-Pope-or-President-or-both-1492050997746004/

https://www.facebook.com/Should-the-Pope-convert-to-Islam-141277252691901/?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/Secular-Koranism-657868884251333/?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/Does-promoting-gay-marriage-cause-degeneracy-210948989029916/?fref=ts

How to dramatically lower the number of rape complaints without changing the law

When is consent not consent?

Will the comment below at http://barristerblogger.com/2015/12/17/the-law-on-transsexual-sex-has-lost-touch-with-humanity-and-common-sense/#more-1641 be displayed by Matthew Scott?

If extramarital sex were treated as sexual offences, we wouldn’t have any of this nonsense, though this smacks of sharia law. But needs must, and we cannot continue to have the court system clogged up with complaints being made by mentally ill men who want to be women, nor must we continue rewarding lying promiscuous women who make false rape accusations because they have been financially incentivised at £11,000 a pop.



Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Europe, with the UN reporting 69 rape cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011, according to author and advocate of power feminism Naomi Wolf on opinion website Project Syndicate.


http://quran.com/24/2

Miss de Freitas took her own life. She appears to have accused Mr Economou of drugging and raping her – two weeks after it never happened – out of revenge. Being if not an alpha male then relatively young, articulate, charismatic, handsome, and most of all rich, he would be a catch for any young woman. By the same token she was young, stunningly attractive, and, he says, great company. They met through a mutual friend, and would have made the perfect couple, but after she began throwing money around like confetti he became curious about not only her mental state but her source of income. She was clearly working in what is known generically as the sex industry, and he suspected she was a prostitute, not the type of girl he felt he could take home to meet mother, so he ended their relationship basically after a one-night stand.




Did the Crown Prosecution Service exceed its powers as John Humphrys was suggesting to Alison Saunders?

Rape compensation cut overturned

Thursday, 17 December 2015

Anne McElvoy on British Conservaliberalism

British Conservatism: The Grand Tour
British Liberalism: The Grand Tour

Liberalism meaningless: the rich think it means freedom from laws and taxes, the poor think it means freedom from poverty and oppression.

Either Liberalism is the same thing as Conservatism or it is not. Anne McElvoy seems to think they are the same.

Do you get the impression that Anne McElvoy uses Liberalism and Conservatism interchangeably? I do.

Is Anne McElvoy's series on British Liberalism just a rehash of her series on British Conservatism?

Listening to Anne McElvoy on British Conservatism/Liberalism, do you get the impression it is just "shit UK governments do"?

British Liberalism and British Conservatism seems to be nothing more than "shit the British government does and thinks".

Anne McElvoy's on Conservatism/Liberalism should be a programme called What Passes for British Political Thought since the French Revolution.

British Conservatism came from an Irishman as a belated response to the French Revolution.

Conservatism is an ideology no older than the American and French Revolutions, which failed to prevent Russian Revolution.

Ask a Western politician or journalist to tell you where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins, and he will start prevaricating and looking nervous and shifty. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Predictably, I received no answer from Anne McElvoy when I asked her this question.




Liberalism and Conservatism means whatever Western politicians want it to mean.

Liberalism and Conservatism means motherhood and apple pie to the typical British voter.  It therefore means precisely nothing.

In Australia the party closest to Conservatism is called the Liberal Party.  Does this mean confusion, incoherence bordering on mania and dementia?

The West whose ideology is Conservatism and Liberalism do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their "religion".

Has Conservaliberalism stood the test of time - all 252 years of it so far?

ISIS have the Koran said to come from God, while the West do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their ideology. Perhaps it can only be found in The Unholy and Unwritten Conservaliberal Book of Making It Up As You Go Along?

There was a reason why the plebs demanded that The Twelve Tables of Romebe placed in a prominent part of the forum so that the operation of Rome's laws would be accessible and foreseeable.

What are Western values? It seems to mean Conservaliberalism which it cannot even agree on or officially define.

Would Edmund Burke be shocked and disgusted that a Conservative Prime Minister has legalised gay marriage?

Liberalism + Conservatism + Wolfowitz Doctrine + Full Spectrum Dominance + Neoconservatism + Neoliberalism = American Imperialism

Can even the most intelligent intellectual defend an ideology that does not have a commonly agreed source?

Is it wise to defend ideologies that are clearly incoherent and make no sense at all which no one can define?

It is clearly unwise to present a programme on these incoherent ideologies relying only on politicians' reminiscences of what was said and done when they were in government and politics without any attempt to define where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins. Let us call it Conservaliberalism then!

Is PC Liberalism the equivalent of Sexual Liberation and casual fornication leading to widespread bastardy and national degeneracy? Is this the "way of life" the West is so keen on defending?

ISIS hate gay marriage while Conservaliberals seem to be saying they are prepared to defend it to the death.  What is the point of defending a practice that would result in racial and national degeneracy which God has already declared to be an abomination in both the Bible and Koran?

Conservatism + Liberalism = Gay Marriage

Conservatism + Liberalism + Democracy = Immigration?

Another expression of Conservaliberalism is being in the EU and NATO, irrespective of whether or not it is in the national interest, because, let's face it, these pygmy politicians have no idea what to do outside it, because they have no imagination or principles, and have no idea what the national interest is. They only want to be in office without being in power and only think in terms of elections the way children think of playing musical chairs.

Why do Liberals and Conservatives pretend they can't understand why people hate immigration when they know being hospitable to even family members can be a pain?

Would Victorian Conservaliberals' views on sexual morality be closer that of ISIS than the gay and female advisers of Downing Street?

Did Anne McElvoy mention that the National Liberal Party merged with the Conservative Party in 1947? I don't think so.

The Liberal Nationals also changed their name to National Liberals at this stage. (Their reluctance to take this label originally is said to be a reaction to Lloyd George's use of the name for the earlier National Liberal Party in the 1920s.)

So, Conservaliberalism is a good thing then? Well, it has made the West what it is now  ...

If I had been presenting the programme, I would have pointed out that Conservatism was no more than a response to the French Revolution.

Since both Conservatism and Liberalism are the same thing in the mind of Anne McElvoy, we can say that Conservaliberalism is no more than 252 years old. I choose 1763 because that was the beginning of the American Revolution, which the French had a part in. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/timeline.html

If the French had not fought the Seven Years War then they would not have found their coffers empty and having to replenish them through the imposition of objectionably high taxes.

If Louis XVI had been Caliph of France - a Caliph is a constitutional dictator - and governed Islamically according to all the rules of the Koran, he would not have lost his head.

If Henry Tudor had been Muslim, it would have been no big deal for him to have up to four wives. Think of the number of heads that would have stayed on shoulders and the wars avoided if there had been no Catholic Church for Protestants to protest against and all the religious wars and persecution in Europe that would have been avoided. Forget all the non-Christians the Christians killed, ask yourself how many Christians the Christians killed. It is just possible that Christians killed even more Christians than they killed Muslims. Quite a thought, eh? It was the schismatic nature of Christianity that caused white people to endlessly fight, persecute and kill each other. It was Conservaliberalism that started two World Wars, after all, but Anne McElvoy doesn't mention that either. It is not surprising then that white people became so good at war and took over the world. Now that they only go around hypocritically pretending that they invade oil-rich Muslim countries to save Muslims from themselves and pay mercenaries to fight their wars, they will most probably go the way of the Roman empire.

Was the The Seven Years War fought for Koranically-approved reasons?  No, because it only officially permits defensive wars. Sure, go acquire an empire if you want - the Koran allows Muslims conquerors to impose the jizya on their conquered after all, but if you don't win it or can't really afford it, then on your head be it.

An Islamic rate of tax is only a flat rate income tax of 20%.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums Did you know hedge funds also charge 20%?  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/two_and_twenty.asp  Why is 20 the magic number? Because it is the highest percentage most people would willingly pay without trying to avoid or evade it.

Was WW1 fought for Koranically-approved reasons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence Nope. Should Russia have entered it? Nope. If the Russians had had a Caliph of Russia rather than silly Tsar with an equally silly Tsarina carrying on with Rasputin, there would have been no Russian Revolution either.

What do the French now think of their Revolution? Do you know they are now on their fifth Republic? Yep, every time they change their constitution, a new republic is formed, and they have changed their constitution five times already, cos they keep getting it wrong ...

As Zhou Enlai said, it is too early to tell if the French Revolution was a good thing. Since he is dead, perhaps we should ask the French people what they think of the French Revolution now. I did recently and the response was a Gallic shrug.

Does the picture below say anything you might want to say about Conservaliberalism?



Anne McElvoy's series on British Conservatism

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Petition PEACEFULLY for a Caliphate by Referendum!

Dear Claire Khaw,

You’re not done yet!

Forward the email below to your potential supporters.

5 people need to click the link and confirm their support for us to publish your petition.

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115623/sponsors/mFx8m80LEbj3s9PrSGnd


My petition:
Debate the feasibility of establishing a Caliphate by referendum.
ISIS are threatening to impose a Caliphate and fly the flag of Islam in Downing Street. Should we jump before we are pushed?
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115623/sponsors/mFx8m80LEbj3s9PrSGnd

At 10,000 signatures you get a response from the government.
At 100,000 signatures your petition will be considered for a debate in Parliament.

Irrespective of whether you are Muslim or even want a Caliphate, wouldn't it just be great to see Parliament debate the pros and cons of having a Caliphate?

A Caliph would be a kind of constitutional monarch or dictator. (Yes, it is logically possible to have a constitutional dictator if it is possible to have a constitutional monarch! What is a king but a dictator in all but name? A constitutional monarch is a monarch limited by the constitution, and a Caliph would be a constitutional monarch (or dictator, if you prefer) limited by what the Koran allows.

Now that I have put it this way, it doesn't sound quite so frightening, does it?

As for the atrocities that ISIS have committed, you will doubtless be aware that the French Revolutionaries did their fair share of beheadings too, and after a while they calmed down under the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte who crowned himself emperor.

If you ask a Frenchman what he thinks of the French Revolution, all you would get is a Gallic shrug and the comment that "Nothing has changed."

Did you know that the French are now on their Fifth Republic? If they change their constitution again it will be their Sixth Republic. If they were using sharia law, would they be changing their constitution as often as they change underwear? God's laws are eternal and universal, and won't need such constant correction. Wouldn't it be nice for us to all settle down after knowing and being told what's what and where we all are in society? You betcha!

Think of all the exciting Saturday evenings the British Nation would enjoy choosing a Caliph through a TV show called Britain's Got a Caliph.

Sign my petition and let the fun begin!

Create your own user feedback survey


Wednesday, 9 December 2015

Two logic tests for Muslims on Donald Trump

Create your own user feedback survey






Trump against overthrowing the governments of Muslim countries

Sunday, 6 December 2015

Mishal Husain: "bombing Syria sounds more about image than what we can achieve"



MPs voted this week to authorize British forces joining airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria. General Sir Simon Mayall is former defence advisor to the government on the Middle East and the Prime Minister’s security envoy to Iraq during first half of 2015; Aimen Dean is a former al-Qaeda member who switched to work for MI5 and MI6 in 1998.

Mayall: "A huge demographic bulge of young people" [in the Middle East while the West ages] - demographics is destiny. They have plenty of angry young men prepared to sacrifice life and limb, turbo-charged by their religion.

So this is what ISIS have.

What have we got? Imbeciles in government, and imbecilic senescent voters in denial who don't marry, don't have legitimate children or don't bring up whatever children they have properly, who refuse to sacrifice anything or take any risks unquestioningly swallowing the absurdities the government stuffs down their unresisting throats to justify their atrocities while pretending to believe that Muslims become terrorists for no particular reason other than they are Muslim.

Dean: "ISIS is a symptom, not the cause."

Husain: "This sounds more about image than actually what we can achieve" in response to Mayall saying Britain should "be there" because it is a permanent P5 member, we have a UN Resolution blah blah".

So this is why our government bombs people, is it? And you are OK with this, are you?

We deserve what's coming to us, for bombing people for image reasons and thinking this right and proper while pretending to be horrified and outraged that ISIS are gunning for us.

https://t.co/HgAQI6s7C8 from 1:36


General Wesley Clark: The US will attack 7 countries in 5 years

Saturday, 31 October 2015

This is Dildoween!

Feminazis don't know the difference between a threat and an expression of opinion

Kate Smurthwaite
Hi, I’m writing an article, I’d like to talk to you, would that be possible? DM me. Kate
Oct 27

Claire Khaw
May I know what this article is about?
Oct 27

Kate Smurthwaite
People who send me abusive tweets. Any explanation as to why you do so?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
I bet every single tweeter has received an abusive tweet at one time or another if they ever tweet about politics.
Oct 28

All I can find of any tweets from me to you is at https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Antfem%20to%3ACruella1&src=typd and there are only two. I would not describe either as being "abusive".

What "abuse" do you remember receiving from me?

I am sure the worst I have ever been guilty of is saying things you disagree with. You really must get out of this "Me, me! I am a victim too" state of mind. This is not feminist liberation, it is reversion to type. Women tend to rely on their victimhood to get their way. It is another exercise of soft power.

The other kind is being so sweet and good and delicate and feminine that men just want instinctively to protect you.
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
So when you've effectively threatened me with violence?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
When have I ever threatened you with violence??

Do please tell me, in case I did ever threaten you with violence, and then, God forbid, FORGOTTEN ALL ABOUT IT. I like to think I would remember if I ever threatened you with violence and if I did actually threaten you with violence and then FORGOT ALL ABOUT IT, I need to get in touch with my memory doctor pronto!

No threats of violence in this tweet at


No threats of violence at https://twitter.com/cruella1/status/554007135978553344 either.


https://twitter.com/ntfem/status/521236074916753408

[Re Kate Smurthwaite's appearance on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m0mxh]


may be closer to your definition of violence, but expressing an opinion on a course of action one does not expect to be acted on by the government before we are both dead is not "threatening with violence"


is neither abusive nor violent.

Where and when will this article be published?
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
And you really think that tweets like calling for me to be placed in a scold's bridle are not threatening or violent?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
Yes, because it is not at all likely very likely that you are going to be put into one, is it?

For a threat of violence to count, it has to be CREDIBLE. How likely am I to change the government from what it is now to one that would put you in a scold's bridle on a scale of 1 out 100?
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
Oh so unlikely threats of violence are ok? Do you not see that these sort of messages are still abusive?
Oct 29

Claire Khaw
 If I want to say things that others may find offensive, then I would have to accept the right of others to say things that I would find offensive. In any case, the police will only act on CREDIBLE THREATS of violence. It is the price of free speech we all have to pay, my dear.

I expressed only an OPINION, not an INTENTION. I am sure you are capable of distinguishing between the two. Abuse should be defined as "You are a %$£*&." Threats should take the form of "I will do X to you."  I merely expressed an OPINION that I neither intended to act upon or expected anyone to do so.

I suggest that this is how you categorise the tweets that offend you, into (1) OPINION YOU FIND OFFENSIVE, (2) THREATS or mere (3) ABUSE.

A curse - eg "I hope your children die of cancer" - is merely an expression of OPINION.


Wednesday, 28 October 2015

Europeans arm themselves to protect themselves against migrant swarm crime wave


Guns Sell Out As Europeans Arm Themselves For War After Treasonous EU Governments Abandon Their Safety And Borders

Many in Europe now wish they had a 2nd Amendment that gave them the right to bear arms.

The situation in Europe underlines the importance to survival of the right to bear arms. If your government deserts the personal and family safety of citizens in favour of foreigners, you are a hapless victim as the video below proves. Only the fact that the man had a weapons stopped the savages from attacking.

EUROPEANS NOW SCRAMBLE FOR GUNS

Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.

Tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” have poured into Austria from Hungary and Slovenia in recent months on their way to Germany and Sweden, two wealthy European countries that have laid out the welcome mat for migrants. More than a million will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year, according to estimates from the German government.

Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.

The laws in Austria, while still strict, are a bit less overbearing.

A Czech TV report confirms that long guns – shotguns and rifles – have been flying off the shelves in Austria, and Austrians who haven’t already purchased a gun may not have a chance to get one for some time. They’re all sold out.

And those arming themselves are primarily women.

“If anyone wants to buy a long gun in Austria right now, too bad for them,” the Czech newscaster says. “All of them are currently sold out.”

He cites the Austrian news outlet Trioler Tageszeitung as the source of his report.

“We cannot complain about lack of demand,” Stephen Mayer, a gun merchant, told Trioler Tageszeitung.

He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes.

“People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.”

They are also buying pepper sprays, which Mayer said are in big demand among those who can’t get a gun.

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said he recently returned from a gun rights event in Europe, where he sensed a change in attitude toward firearms.

“I just returned from a gun rights meeting in Belgium, and I can attest that all over Europe people now want the means to defend themselves,” Gottlieb told WND. “Self-defense is no longer a dirty word. In countries like Austria, where it is still legal to own a firearm, gun sales are at record levels. I can tell you first-hand that people in Europe now wish they had a Second Amendment.”

More potential new customers are entering the market than ever before, according to the Czech report.

Video: http://news-headlines.co.za/guns-sell-out-as-europeans-arm-themselves-for-war-after-treasonous-eu-governments-abandon-their-safety-and-borders/

Until the refugees started flooding Europe, it was mostly hunters and sport shooters who purchased firearms. Now, people are seeking weapons for self-defense because they are worried about their personal safety. Most have never used a gun before.

So-called “projectile weapons” are available in Austria under two classifications, C and D, which are rifles and shotguns. Every adult Austrian is legally able to apply for a weapons permit but must disclose to the government their reason for wanting to own a gun.

The news outlet then interview a sociologist and an Austrian journalist, both of whom said the weapons purchases were based on unfounded fears about foreign migrants.

‘Something is very wrong here’

The Viennese sociologist, identified only as Mr. Gertler, said no such fears about migrants should ever be published by any Austrian news outlet.

A journalist named Wittinger said “something is very wrong here” if Austrians are buying guns to protect themselves against migrants.

“Shotguns will not, after all, solve any immediate problems, quite the contrary,” he said.

The Czech TV station then reported that Islamists are promising: “We will cut the heads off unbelieving dogs even in Europe.”

“Look forward to it, it’s coming soon!” the Czech newscaster said.

ISIS-trained jihadists are now returning as European citizens or they are trying to infiltrate as migrants. In one propaganda video an ISIS operative informs his comrades back home in Germany to slit the throats of unbelievers in Germany, Czech TV reports.

“Overall, the ministry of interior stated that Germany is in the cross-hairs of Islamic terrorists but that he does not have any indications of specific threats,” he said.

Bracing for another Islamic invasion

The Czech site reflects awareness of a major event in Western history, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

“Polish King Jan Sibelius defeated the Muslim invaders at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Another Muslim invasion is underway and Austrians are alarmed, hence their run on gun stores,” Pratt told WND. “Women are right to be concerned in view of the Muslim view of women that they are good for raping and little else.”

The Czech TV report cited the Arab Spring as the root cause for the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe.

“More and more, the whole thing is turning into the situation that we will experience the much-touted Arab spring from very close up – right here at home,” the reporter said. “What’s more, many European are alienating large part of their own populace with unfortunate social and multicultural politics, merciless removal of children, unfair seizures and trading on traditional European values and with policies which are usually less friendly toward conservative and traditional native inhabitants and leans toward that portion of inhabitants who have little trouble with globalization and nonchalant liberalization, removal of traditions and Islamization. Yet we will not be able to rely on it, that portion of (population) once the Arab Spring comes here. And that will probably be, as they say, closing the barn after the cows are gone.”

http://news-headlines.co.za/guns-sell-out-as-europeans-arm-themselves-for-war-after-treasonous-eu-governments-abandon-their-safety-and-borders/

Saturday, 24 October 2015

Feminists hoist by their own petard when they say men cannot be women

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287810/Germaine-Greer-accuses-Caitlyn-Jenner-wanting-steal-limelight-female-Kardashians.html

The petition, which was started on Change.org by Rachael Melhuish, women's officer at Cardiff University students' union, alleged Greer has 'demonstrated misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether'.

1. You cannot be guilt of misogyny if the people you are supposed to hate are not even women.

2.  Someone born with a penis can never be a woman and someone born with a vagina can never be a man. The reasons are rooted in biology. Males have XY chromosomes and females have XX chromosomes.

3.  Saying someone who is not a woman is not a woman is not hating them. It is only telling the truth and telling the truth may cause people who want to deny the truth to hate you.

4. Why is the state or anyone telling us whom we may not hate?

5. Telling people they cannot hate you is very likely to make them hate you.




The question Kirsty Wark should have asked Germaine Greer:

"If gender is indeed a construct then surely a man doesn't need to have a vagina to become a woman? He just needs to feel that he is a woman and have the outward appearance of a woman convincing enough to make other men think he is a woman and/or want to have sex with him under the impression that he is female."

On this matter, it would appear that the trans have the upper hand in this argument, if it is the case that gender is merely a construct ie our assigned gender roles are imposed on us by society which we are free to transcend at will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender_difference

That would have been the really interesting question for Kirsty Wark to ask, so it was really too bad she missed this golden opportunity. It would be fun to hear Julie Bindel attempt to answer it too.


Tuesday, 20 October 2015

Robert Plomin is denounced by the left and feminists who hate his ideas

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2013/07/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/


I predict feminists will have fits of the vapours over this and denounce Robert Plomin for his "dangerous ideas", especially if they are sluts, Slut Single Mothers with variously fathered bastards like Suzanne Moore. All sluts are by definition stupid, and all men who refuse to denounced sluts are MCSFs - Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers. That would be the majority of voters in the West, which is now dying a well-deserved death. This is because sluts make less rational reproductive decisions than lower animals. Western governments knowing this, but refusing to correct this, demonstrates conclusively that neither feminism nor democracy is morally or intellectually defensible.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/19/whatever-happened-to-sex/

Should feminist mother be allowed to deprive conservative father of access to their children over a political disagreement?

https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/secret-trial/


Indeed, a malicious Muslim ex-wife could say that her ex-husband is a Radical Muslim, plans to join ISIS and take their children, urging the court to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The answer to both questions is NO because otherwise a malicious wife could deprive her husband of his children over a difference in opinion about gay marriage, abortion or any other policy that departs from government policy. This means fathers in effect have no rights over their children at all. If this is the kind of society the British judiciary is happy to live in and perpetuate, then we will all know by the end of the three-day trial in December 2015.


Would this make a difference?

I would say yes, because a married couple with legitimate children should have more rights over each other and their children than unmarried parents over their illegitimate offspring. That is, if the government is minded to support the institution of marriage. Western governments, drunk on the sexual licence promoted by feminism have been instrumental in desecrating the institutions of marriage and family for decades. They now run Big Sister government and their voters, also addicted to extramarital sex as an inalienable human right, seem happy to go along with this.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/19/whatever-happened-to-sex/


But not all corruption is financial or money-motivated. Spiritual corruption is even more dangerous as it erodes the character of people. Once people’s concerns do not go beyond themselves and their own feelings, a culture is dead. 

Monday, 19 October 2015

The admin of the Facebook page of UKIP Local and me




https://www.facebook.com/ukiplocal?fref=nf

Claire Khaw

Are you sure it is a good idea to use a dead white male in the leave campaign?

UKIP Local

Why does it make the message any less true?

Claire Khaw

You think a message being borne by the dead or elderly and dying men will have any resonance with the voters of the 21st century who do not already agree with you? It just reveals the cluelessness of the leave campaign.
May I know when this video was made? Last century?

These comments have been deleted and I have been predictably disabled from posting by some elderly Facebook poster. These old codgers and crones can't take any criticism at all.

Sunday, 18 October 2015

The Bible is obviously more extreme than the Koran. Why won't Christian chauvinists admit this?


Professor Charmley is a Catholic academic.





Monday, 12 October 2015

Keir Starmer's "victim's law" has undermined the requirement for a criminal standard of proof to convict




There is an easy way to solve this problem.

All complainants should satisfy the condition of being able to stand up in court and satisfying the criminal burden of proof.

The civil balance of probability is 50+%.

The criminal standard of proof is 75+%.

If you have a complaint ask yourself these questions:

1. Were there any witnesses or is it uncorroborated testimony?

2. Are they still alive?

4. Can you get hold of them?

5. Are they of good character?

6. Are they credible witnesses?

7. Might they have an axe to grind with the person who are thinking of accusing?

8. If there were no witnesses and your testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone else, do you have any other evidence against the person you considering accusing?

If your answer to 7 is YES and NO to all the other questions FORGET IT.

 If you still go ahead you should be done for wasting police time.

Policemen who proceed with this kind of dodgy evidence should be found guilty of malicious prosecution.

DPPs Keir Starmer and Alison Saunders should be forced to apologise for causing so much injustice by diluting the requirement of the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt to balance of probability in sexual assault cases.

Alison Saunders should resign for allowing this nonsense to carry on under her watch and immediately review Rolf Harris's case.

Keir Starmer should be named and shamed for his "victim's law" which started all this nonsense because it undermined the principle of the criminal standard of of guilt beyond reasonable doubt which has resulted in so many probable miscarriages of justice.  Keir Starmer heads Labour's victim treatment review 

Degrees of radicalisation


One then has to consider whether state-sponsored terrorism is always evil, if it is indeed the case that one man's terrorist is another man' freedom-fighter.


All rapists are men, but not all men are rapists.
All sluts are women, not not all women are sluts.

It is possible to be a man without being a rapist.
It is possible to be a woman without being a slut.
It is possible to be radicalised without going on to become a terrorist.
It is possible to be a terrorist without being Muslim.

Questions for MPs:


  1. Does radicalisation only apply to Muslims?
  2. Would you say that Anders Breivik was radicalised?
  3. If your answer is NO, is it because he is not Muslim?
  4. Have you considered changing UK foreign policy to deal with the problem of terrorism? 
  5. Have you considered why Muslims might get upset, angry and violent if you bomb, invade and impose regime-change on Muslim countries for no good reason that they can see?
  6. Have you considered having an honest debate about UK foreign policy?
  7. Is the reason why you refuse to have a full and frank debate about UK foreign policy is because the UK does not have an independent foreign policy and/or that it is in fact indefensible?
  8. Is the reason why the UK does not have an independent foreign policy because it is a vassal state of the US?
  9. Have you considered whether now might be the time to leave NATO so as to break it up and make the Americans withdraw into isolationism, leaving the world a more peaceful place?
  10. Have you considered that the possibility that US foreign policy is actually insane?
  11. Have you made the link between destroying Muslim countries at the behest of Washington for no good reason and the migrant swarms heading your way?
  12. Have you heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine?
  13. Have you considered that the victims of the Wolfowitz Doctrine ie Muslim countries toppled by the West might wish to object to it in the strongest possible terms and use terrorism to do so?
  14. If you are an MP and have not heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, should you be whipped by your party into voting to bomb Syria?
  15. If you are a Labour MP, are you grateful that Jeremy Corbyn is allowing you a free vote on whether to bomb Syria?
  16. If you are a Tory MP, dare you demand a free vote for Tory MPs over voting on whether to bomb Syria if Labour MPs are getting a free vote?
  17. If not, why not?
  18. Is it cos you are too scared or stupid to challenge UK foreign policy of "bomb first and wring our hands later"?
  19. Does UK foreign policy promote the British national interest?
  20. How would you define the national interest?
  21. What is the point of supporting a foreign policy that provokes terrorism that you cannot explain to your constituents?
  22. Does it make sense to support a foreign policy that provokes terrorism and responding to the terrorism you provoke with increasing restrictions on the liberties of your citizens?
  23. Do you know why so many citizens in NATO member states like, admire and support Putin, as Iain Dale said on the Sky Press Review?
  24. Do you know why non-establishment politicians like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump admire and like Putin?






Because sane people can understand what Putin is doing, why he is doing it and seeing that what he is doing works while explaining current government policy both domestic and foreign is like trying to explain the motivations of an imbecile or a lunatic, that's why we like Putin so much.


Paul Craig Roberts explains the evil of US foreign policy.