If you'd like to republish any of my articles, you are welcome to do so. I'm just asking you to add a link to the original post on my blog.

Monday, 24 November 2014

1/4 Brits Want All Immigrants Sent Back

Protest against high levels of immigration in Boston, Lincolnshire

A new report, "How to talk about immigration", contains some interesting statistics.

It was published by British Future, that describes itself as "an independent, non-partisan thinktank engaging people’s hopes and fears about integration and migration, opportunity and identity, so that we share a confident and welcoming Britain, inclusive and fair to all."

That description belies the "non-partisan" label, as we know what the socialist-shibboleth words "welcoming, inclusive and fair" actually mean. And reading the paper, whose authors declare to be shocked by some poll results it reports, confirms its partisan nature: if you are impartial, you should refrain from emotional involvement, which in itself shows that you have something at stake.

This is what shocks them. On page 17: asked what they think about the statement “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally”, 25% of all UK respondents said they agree, 52% disagree.

One out of four is an impressive proportion, especially if you consider that the repatriation would be for all immigrants, legal and illegal, and given the current climate of fear of expressing opinions that the report's authors classify as "rejectionist": much nicer to be classified "liberal", which in the deceptive lingo the Left has imposed on all of us doesn't really mean - as it should - a defender of the freedom of the individual from the power of the state (the meaning intended by the creators of the term and its general philosophy), but a socialist or communist, namely its diametrically opposite. Leftists don't like to be called by their proper names: Marxist, socialist, Trotskyist, Maoist, communist, anarchist. They prefer the stolen moniker "liberal", even though - nay, exactly because - it's totally inaccurate.

But the opinion surveys carried out by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov, on which the immigration report is based, have other good, indeed better, news. On page 16: over two thirds, namely 67%, of people interviewed disagree with “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls”, while 14% agree.

England Calling comments:
Public rhetoric about immigration is rapidly hardening. There will come a tipping point where the rhetoric has departed so far from the politically correct position that serious action to restrict immigration will occur because the stretch between rhetoric and action will become too great to sustain in a society where governments are elected.

A party political bidding process on the subject of immigration is already taking place and there will come a point where serious action has to follow or there will be a very real chance that either one or more of the mainstream parties will become irrelevant and be superseded, or members of the mainstream parties will wrest control of these parties from their pc indoctrinated leadership and adopt a policy on immigration closer to what the public wants.

H/t to David Brown

US Mum Bucks Muslim Propaganda in School

Porter Ridge High School in-class worksheet about Islam

Porter Ridge High School in-class worksheet about Islam

Islamic supremacism is taught in American public schools, one of which is Porter Ridge High School in Union County, North Carolina.

A ninth-grade world-history teacher assigned an in-class worksheet about Islam which the pupils had to fill in with the "correct" answers (the worksheet's first part is in the above picture).


Some of those answers were that Islam is a peaceful religion, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world and most Muslims' faith is stronger than the average Christian.

Islamic Scriptures and history are testament to the fact that the exact opposite of the first is true.

The second has been investigated and proven false. It's one of those cases in which, if you repeat a lie enough times, it is eventually believed. The claim that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world has been made by Muslim websites providing no explanation or grounds for the assertion:
As proof, they usually present unverifiable claims and baseless media quotes. Apparently ABC News had claimed "Already more than a billion-people strong, Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion", a quote which cannot be traced to its source. Also CNN World News stated "Fast-growing Islam winning converts in Western world", a statement which they fail to back up with any evidence.
The Encyclopedia of Islam Myths has made a thorough investigation leading to this:
  1. There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day. This data makes the entire discussion about "rates of growth" irrelevant. The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis. This may change, but today, in 2004 AD, Christians take the prize for being the fastest growing religion.
  2. On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing religion.
  3. That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical facts.
After careful research and examination of the sources, WikiIslam has reached this conclusion:
According to "The Future of the Global Muslim Population," published in January 2011 by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the growth and anticipated future growth of Islam is primarily due to "their relatively high birth rate, the large number of Muslims of childbearing age, and an increase in life expectancy in Muslim-majority countries" and conversions play little part in the increase due to available data suggesting "Islam loses as many adherents via conversion as it gains."[1][2]

In 2006, countries with a Muslim majority had an average population growth rate of 1.8% per year (when weighted by percentage Muslim and population size).[3] This compares with a world population growth rate of 1.12% per year[4], and according to the World Christian Encyclopaedia, between 1990 and 2000, Islam received around 865,558 converts each year. This compares with an approximate 2,883,011 converts each year for Christianity during the same period...

All the actual data available reveals that Islam is neither the fastest growing religion by number of adherents or the fastest growing religion by percentage-increase.

The growing number of Muslims in the world is due primarily to the higher than average birth-rates, and consequent population growths of Muslim countries and communities. And their growing presence in non-Muslim societies such as Europe and the Americas is overwhelmingly due to immigration.

Furthermore, converts to Islam are vastly outnumbered by those who choose to leave the religion and embrace another faith or worldview. And the majority of converts that Islam does manage to attract, decide to leave within the first few years of practicing it.
An analysis by Islamoscope also arrived at something similar:
From the statistics available we can clearly see that the fastest growing religion in the world in real terms is Christianity. Where Islam gains 23 Million new adherents annually, Christianity gained 30 Million new adherents in that same period. Thus, Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world.
The Religion of Peace has other intelligent considerations to add:
Islam is not "growing faster" than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West. Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so growth from a higher birthrate hardly constitutes any sort of genuine accomplishment.

A 2011 Pew Research study of global Muslim growth rates concluded that there is "no net growth through conversion", meaning that for every person who "embraces" Islam (usually by changing their nominal designation after marrying a Muslim man), there is at least one other who is willing to leave the faith in spite of harsh consequences.

Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers. Nearly all are really just people who had no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation. In the West and other parts of the non-Muslim world in which all religions are allowed to compete equally such people experiencing a spiritual awakening are far more likely to turn to Christianity than Islam...

In the Muslim world, Christians who evangelize are imprisoned, assaulted, beaten, set on fire, shot, bludgeoned, and tortured by Islamists. Missionaries are raped and killed. Former Muslims who embrace Christianity as their religion of choice are thrown in jail along with their children, sexually assaulted, crippled, hanged, stoned, stabbed, dismembered, carved up, scalded, beheaded, brutalized, doused with acid, burned alive and publicly executed...

...and Muslims brag that their religion is growing faster!

Muslims who gloat over their “fast growing" religion are no different than the child from our example who deludes himself into thinking that he is smarter and better for “beating” a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial “victory” entirely meaningless.

So the more pertinent question isn't which religion is growing faster, but which is growing faster where people are free to choose. In this environment, Christianity wins easily. Converts are even won in Muslim countries under draconian conditions that Muslim evangelists never have to face anywhere on the planet. When was the last time a person was killed or tortured merely for embracing Islam?
This takes care of the second answer in the school worksheet of those quoted here. The third is impossible to verify: how do you measure the strength of the faith of a person, let alone of billions of people? Certainly Muslims will tend to submit more easily to Islamic prescriptions through fear of the immediate consequences rather than free will, but Christians displaying the greatest courage possible to a human being by remaining Christian in the face of the most horrendous persecution (generally from Muslims) are witnesses (martyrs in Greek) to the value of their faith.

There are other falsities in the study sheet (for example the definition of jihad as "inner struggle", whereas the most important element of jihad is the physical, holy war against infidels).

In addition, it contains several elements of overt Leftist political indoctrination disguised as "correct" answers, something that goes against the ethics of public school education. These are some of them: "These fundamentalists represent a small percentage of the population of Islam, so we must be careful not to label or assume.", "To win [the war on terror] we need to raise the standard of living in areas of squalor" and "'start seeing Muslims' and avoid racial profiling".

The part about Islamic culture and empires is also rife with factual errors ad distortions for such a short documents.


The mother of a student who had to fill in these answers in the worksheet was deeply outraged over them, so much so that she contacted WJYZ-TV, a Fox affiliate, denouncing this educational abomination.

"If you are going to do it, let’s do it right," she said. "I really feel there is a spin on this."

The statement that most upset the mother, who wished to remain anonymous, is: "Most Muslims' faith is stronger than the average Christian."

She called the school to see if it teaches Christianity as much as Islam, but didn't receive any answer. Her son told her they skimmed Christianity in class.


Another parent had in October expressed outrage over his daughter’s Islam-related school assignment.

Kevin Wood, an Iraq veteran who presumably had had ample opportunity to see the "religion of peace" in action, was upset to discover a teacher had asked his daughter to write a three-page essay about Islam’s Five Pillars, Mecca and Mohammed.

"I don’t agree with it," Wood told Fox News. "I said you can’t study God or Christianity in school; you have atheists suing schools for saying God and the Pledge [of Allegiance], and not being able to say prayers before football games … but we can force-feed our kids Islam.”

For that he was banned from his daughter’s high school.

Friday, 21 November 2014

UKIP Is Better but Is No Solution

UKIP supporters

Yesterday the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has gained its second seat in Britain's House of Commons, the lower House of Parliament, with Mark Reckless elected in the Rochester and Strood constituency, in Kent. The victory was obtained through a comfortable, though not dramatic, majority of 2,930 votes over the Conservative runner-up Kelly Tolhurst, a majority which many say may easily be lost again at the May 2015 general election for the UK Parliament.

This, and especially UKIP's first Member of Parliament, Douglas Carswell, elected on 9 October 2014 in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, with a landslide of 60% of the vote, are historical events.

Both seats were won in by-elections necessitated when Mr Carswell and Mr Reckless, already MPs for those constituencies for the Conservative Party, defected to UKIP and left their seats, which they later regained with their new party.

For good or for bad, UKIP, for all its limitations, is changing the British political landscape forever.

Its limitations are a lack of long-term clarity about the objectives the party wants to achieve. "What does it stand for?" is a different question from "Whom does it stand for?".

The answer to the latter is obvious: the great number of British people of middle and working classes who have seen their country transformed beyond recognition in the relatively short time of a few decades, in the most evident way by unrestricted immigration with concomitant multiculturalism and Islamisation, but also in a less macroscopic way by other cultural developments introduced by the New Left, like same-sex marriage, sexualisation of children and what the press calls "political correctness gone mad".

In short, socio-communist agenda goals tacitly or overtly accepted and promoted by the misnamed Conservative Party as well as the most obvious culprits, Labour and LibDems.

The people who are worried by all these recent phenomena and even more scared by the main political parties' inaction at best and collusion at worst regarding them are absolutely right. What they don't necessarily have, after many years of media's and education system's propaganda, is a clear idea of what caused them and where to start if we want to stop, let alone reverse, these momentum-gathering trends.

To know that is the job of politicians. Hence, the question "what to stand for" needs to be answered. It's not enough to be against the EU, mass immigration and the LibLabCon.

Here the UKIP represents vast numbers of the electorate even too well. Like them, it senses the problems but doesn't grasp the solution.

Irish statesman and political thinker Edmund Burke (1729–1797), himself an MP in the House of Commons for many years, made an important distinction between representatives and delegates.

In his famous Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll of 1774, he explained that delegates exclusively carry out the instructions of those who elected them, therefore only reflecting the views and wishes of their constituents.

Representatives, on the other hands, are trustees. Voters have entrusted them to act in their best interest, which doesn't necessarily coincide with what the voters want. Moreover, the representative makes choices on the basis of the common interest, and not just of those who elected him. He considers his constituents' views but doesn't have to abide by their wishes. He follows his conscience. The representative, thus, having knowledge and experience that his constituents generally lack, uses his judgement to form an opinion on what's in the public interest, and acts accordingly.

MPs, Burke said, should be representatives and not delegates.

So, in Bristol he proclaimed (The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Volume I, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854, pp. 446–8):
... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion....

You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament. [Emphasis added]
In these days of rampant populism it's important to realise that the old clique of politicians, in Britain as elsewhere in the West, hasn't acted wrongly so much because it's gone against people's will as because it's gone against people's interest.

In fact, in many cases the political class has given people what they wanted - an unsustainable welfare state - in its own interest, which was to get elected, but has gone against their interest by creating an unprecedented national debt of astronomic proportions that may bankrupt the state and will burden future generations.

UKIP doesn't seem to be different from the other parties in this respect. It doesn't like to tell people uncomfortable truths, as can be seen by the compromises it has already started making, for example by promising that millions of European immigrants can remain in Britain after an EU exit, by its soft stance on Islam, and similar.

UKIP wants to appear politically correct.

Its policies are fluid, constantly changed. Its representatives are often caught saying things against party policy. When put under scrutiny, they often don't know what to say.

All this is not unique to them, but can be found in other parties. But that's exactly it. Where is the difference? Where is a long-term plan for effective change? If UKIP knew the answer, it wouldn't have remained for a very long time without a manifesto, including during the 2014 European elections campaign.

In the end, leaving the European Union is not the ultimate solution. What will UKIP change after that? What about the Third World immigrants, who are an immensely greater problem than Bulgarians and Romanians? What about Islamisation of Britain? What about the erosion of Christian values? The ideological dominance of the Left?

UKIP is a breath of fresh air in the stagnant political situation of the UK, but air, though essential, is not the only necessity of life.

Thursday, 20 November 2014

Black Pete, Symbol of Dutch Resistance against Invaders, Wins

Black Petes

Saturday, in the Dutch historical city of Gouda, the police arrested no fewer than 90 people, protesting both for and against the "Black Pete" blackface character appearing at a children's party marking the beginning of the traditional pre-Christmas, gift-giving festival of Saint Nicholas.

"Sixty people were arrested for demonstrating in unauthorised areas, and 30 for disturbing the peace" said police spokeswoman Yvette Verboon.

You may wonder what could happen during a festive gathering, held to celebrate the arrival of St. Nicholas, to cause such a law-and-order turmoil.

It's our old friend political correctness at work, with attendant accusations of racism. The word "black" means all the difference in the world. We'll have to abolish it from our vocabulary, we cannot use it any more without provoking mayhem.

Not even children and, as in this Dutch case, their events are immune from the PC clutches, as we know from the over 30,000 nursery toddlers and school children labelled racist or homophobic over minor squabbles in one single year in the UK, where schools are forced to report un-PC words used by kids to education authorities, which keep a register of "incidents". These records can remain on file, and schools will provide future employers or universities with them as a pupil's reference, with the potential to blight a child for life.

Back in Gouda, thousands of parents and their young children - some with their faces painted black - gathered in the the city's market square where the celebration was taking place to welcome the national arrival of Sinterklaas (St Nicholas) and his black-faced helpers on a white horse.


According to Christmas folklore in Holland and Belgium, Black Pete (Zwarte Piet in Dutch) is the jolly companion of Saint Nicholas, who climbs down chimneys to help him deliver presents to kids.

The character has a long history. The Dutch celebrate the Sinterklaas festival during a period that culminates on Saint Nicholas Day, 5 December. The beginning of the festivities coincides with St Nicholas' arrival by boat accompanied by Black Pete, or rather hundreds of Black Petes packing the flotilla following the saint’s vessel. St Nicholas then rides a white horse through the streets, escorted by the Black Petes amusing children as they hand out sweets and treats to them.

It's a fun, joyous time for kids and adults, seen as the highlight of the year.

Dutch cities take it in turn to host the start of the annual festival. This year, the national event of Saint Nicholas' arrival aboard a steamboat from Spain kicked off in Gouda on 15 November, broadcast live on Dutch national television and looked forward to by children.

The actors and revellers portraying the Black Pete character are white people who traditionally paint their faces black, sport frizzy hair, golden earrings, large red lips and gaudy, bright-coloured Medieval costumes.

Across the Netherlands, celebrations in which Saint Nicholas comes to town surrounded by Black Petes have been attacked by "anti-racism" campaigners. The critics, including a group called "Zwarte Piet is Racism", claim that Pete is a racist stereotype from the colonial era, and "liberal" politicians have called for the character to be abolished.

This antagonism has led to an increasingly acrimonious polarisation of the Dutch society, because the overwhelming majority of the country supports Black Pete. A poll showed that more than 90% of the Dutch reject the idea that Black Pete is racist and would not change his appearance.

And, in a population of less than 17 million, over 2 million people signed a Facebook petition last year, calling on Black Pete's appearance to remain the same.

While the Facebook page "The Dutch 'Black Pete' tradition is racism" has a risible number of 198 "Likes", the Facebook page "Pietitie" in Pete's support has 2,012,438 "Likes". It says: "Don't let the Netherlands' most beautiful tradition disappear."

This FB page is Holland's most popular ever.

Kudos to the Dutch. Make no mistake. This is not just to maintain a nice tradition and a children's festival, important as it is. This is a movement to resist invaders who try to impose their ways and wills on the colonised Europeans.

The Dutch say Black Pete is harmless fun, an integral part of Dutch culture that is now under fire from outsiders. As Dutchman Marco put it: "This is how I celebrate, how my grandmother and grandfather and parents celebrated, and I don't think it's racist."

The Dutch Freedom Party, with its leader Geert Wilders, has proposed legislation that would enshrine Pete's black colour in law.

Martin Bosma, the Freedom Party's culture spokesman, said: "Ministers and mayors are working to give this loyal helper another colour. That must not happen. Our culture should not be damaged from on high. This law must protect Black Pete."

Belgium, where Black Pete is also a popular character and the same pre-Christmas celebrations take place in many cities, faces similar problems.

Human rights activist Maria Hengeveld, who writes for the Africa is a Country website, claimed: "In general, attacks on Zwarte Piet are widely interpreted as attacks on (white) Dutchness and threats to (white) children's right to jovially celebrate their 'cultural heritage'". She went on to argue that politicians, lawmakers and big businesses "are sensitive to public feeling" on the issue. As an example, Albert Heijn, Holland's largest supermarket chain, went back on its promise to ban Black Pete from its stores after a huge public outcry.

Even the country’s Prime Minister Mark Rutte, probably sensing that the electorate wouldn't be pleased with anything different, has backed the side that favours Black Pete.


This shows what a united, determined nation can do. Some meddling from the UN was revoked:
The [Facebook] page, attracting over a million likes in just one day, followed a letter from the UN's human rights body announcing an investigation and warning the Dutch that the [Black Pete] character is a "racist stereotype".

Marc Jacobs, a Belgian Unesco representative, the UN's cultural organisation, has denied that the Jamaican who signed the letter, was authorised to do so.

"She's just a consultant who abused the name of the UN to bring their own agenda to the media. All the hoopla that Shepherd has caused with her letter is nothing more than a bad move in the game of pressure groups in the Netherlands," he told the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper.

The letter, on headed, official UN high commission for human rights paper, was sent to the Dutch government expressing concerns over the tradition and accusing the authorities of failing to react to complaints of racial discrimination.

Verene Shepherd, who said she was the chairwoman of a UN investigation into the Sinterklaas festival earlier this week called on the Dutch to ban Black Pete.
And last week the highest administrative court in the Netherlands, the Council of State, overturned the ruling of a lower court which had called Black Pete "a negative stereotype" that "infringes on the European treaty of human rights".

The Council of State refused to rule on whether the character was racist.


The procession in Gouda was marred by scuffles, whether between the occasion's supporters and protesters, some of whom were wearing T-shirts saying "Black Pete is racist", or between protesters and police is not clear. Probably both, because the protesters did not remain in their cages, the only place suitable for them.

The Dutch police were forced to make dozens of arrests because protesters moved to the centre of the Medieval city, where the festival was taking place, to demonstrate, instead of staying in designated protest areas outside Gouda's market square. When they were asked to leave the square, they refused and the police took the necessary measures.

Public prosecutor spokesman Wouter Bos said all those held for demonstrating in the wrong place were anti-Black-Pete protesters and they would be fined 220 euros each. Not much of a punishment.

Some children got mixed up in the trouble, and Gouda mayor Milo Schoenmaker said the atmosphere had been "vicious". "It's a pity that adults from outside the city felt the need to demonstrate among the children at the end of the procession," he told the national news agency ANP.

The Netherlands' Prime Minister Mark Rutte joined the debate, supporting the controversial ceremony: "Everyone can talk about Black Pete's colour. But we should not disturb a children's party in this way" he told broadcaster NOS. The clashes made him “deeply, deeply sad”, he said.

For the first time, in an attempt to mollify the critics, the mayor introduced other coloured Petes, like "Cheese Petes" with yellow faces, "Stroopwafel Petes" with striped, light brown faces resembling a Dutch biscuit of the same name, and "Clown Petes" with white faces.

This didn't placate demonstrators and made many people angry.


"Black Peter is black," said the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. "We cannot do much to change that."

Well said. Aren't tradition and national folklore values to respect a bit more, and the hypersensitivities of minorities, who are after all uninvited guests to the Netherlands treated with great generosity, a bit less? Why should the Dutch, as well as the rest of white Westerners, be the only ones expected to make sacrifices of their identity?

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

American Whites a Minority by 2050

If current worldwide demographic trends continue, whites are seriously an endangered race.

A new baby boom of Hispanic, Asian and black children will make whites a minority in the USA by 2050.

White birth rates in America are falling, while immigrants and minorities are having more children.

The population surge does not derive directly from immigration, but rather from immigrants alreday in the USA having children.

This is in the new book Diversity Explosion (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) by Brookings Institution demographer William Frey.

The book contains highly detailed charts and maps showing how falling white birth-rates and rising minority birth-rates will change the way the United States looks and votes forever.

The population of mixed-race Americans will dramatically increase, nearly tripling, in the next 50 years.

The Brookings Institution appears fairly liberal, but the book itself has precious information.

From The Daily Mail:
There are already nearly as many non-white babies being born as white children, according to Census Bureau statistics. It's only a matter of time before minorities children outnumber white ones.

The result, Frey tells the Atlantic, will be very similar to the Baby Boom after the Second World War - except this time it will be minority children being born.

'Back in the 1950s, we had a lot of Americans across the board in their childbearing years - we had all these babies,' he said.

'Now, that's really only the case for some of the newer minorities.'

And it's not just cities that will be changing. The suburbs are already becoming more diverse and are likely to become progressively less white year after year.

Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Hispanics in suburbs grew by more than eight million. Major cities added just three million Hispanics.

Islam between Illusion and Reality

The body of UK aid worker David Haines after ISIS beheaded him

A new article by our guest writer Cassandra.


Imagine, if you can, a fairy tale where a mother teaches her toddler that wolves are simply big, furry, friendly dogs that love a good cuddle. Although she and her child live in a village, nestled against a hillside, in a lush valley where humans and wolves exist in close proximity to each other, she doesn't warn her little girl that wolves are dangerous.

Instead, as well as teaching her daughter that wolves are just big, furry, friendly dogs that love a good cuddle, she also teaches her that it is deeply wrong, even evil, to think the opposite. She explains that this is a bigoted way of thinking. It is what the people of the village thought in the past, and it led to warfare and unbridled hatred towards noble, peaceful wolves. So, although now and again news spreads throughout the village that a wolf has taken a child in the night, the mother continues to assure her daughter that it is the worst thing imaginable to even think about being wary of wolves.

It might make for a marginally entertaining fairy-tale: one that I may write some day, but the mother would surely be the villain of the story. In that fairy tale rather than referring to the Big Bad Wolf, it would be more fitting to refer to the Big Bad Mum.

Something similar is happening today in the West in relation to Islam. We see the effect of it whenever its followers do something so atrociously violent that the media cannot ignore it, and our rulers rush out to defend the reputation of Islam by telling us that it is a religion of peace. It would be "Islamophobic" not to think so, and there is nothing worse than that. However, if a Muslim does something good, the good act can, and most likely will, be attributed to Islam. The implication being that Islam is good, and that it only inspires good acts in people.

I am not saying that all Muslims are violent or dangerous. What I am saying is that this new dogma being adopted in the West - that there is nothing negative, violent or threatening in the doctrine of Islam - is not just false, it is also dangerous. To cajole people into thinking that Islam poses no danger to them on penalty of being deemed "Islamophobic" is to force people to irrationally view something which is a potential danger to them as harmless. This puts lives at risk. Since one of the prime duties of government is to protect the lives of the governed, this is a dereliction of duty on the part of our rulers.

But it is more than that, because it also shows that, although they like to portray themselves as people who care about the weak and vulnerable in society, the opposite is true. They do not in fact care about their people - weak, vulnerable or otherwise. What they do care about is maintaining the status of their ideology and quelling opposition to the type of society that they have engineered through mass immigration. If their citizens, old and young, male and female, suffer or die as a result, that is a price worth paying. They are worthy sacrifices to the Moloch that is multiculturalism.

This point was made clear recently here in England where staff members at Rotherham council were reported to have been reluctant to identify the ethnic origin of child abusers for fear of being considered "racist". They would no doubt have been equally nervous about identifying the religion to which these men belonged for fear of being considered "Islamophobic". It was later reported that child abuse files went missing from the council's archives.

Of course there are many peaceful Muslims who do not do everything that their religion demands, but there are many Muslims that are not peaceful and who do follow their religion to the letter. The current UK terrorist "threat level" is set at "severe", which means that "a terrorist attack is highly likely". Which supposedly means that one should be particularly vigilant as to "suspicious" behaviour. At the same time, since Islam is a "religion of peace" from which only good actions can possibly come forth, people like the staff members at Rotherham council would supposedly be reluctant to report any "suspicious" behaviour on the part of a Muslim for fear of being deemed "Islamophobic".

It is the same insidious dogma which has led to the kidnapping and/or murder of well-meaning Westerners attempting to help people in the Middle East, the most recent example of which is the murder of American citizen Peter Kassig. The American president has already taken the opportunity to use the beheading of Mr Kassig by a Muslim who justified his actions in Islamic terms, and who belonged to a group calling itself the Islamic State, to defend the reputation of Islam. President Obama is reported as having said: “ISIL's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own”. He failed to highlight the fact that Peter Kassig “adopted” Islam while a captive whose life was at the mercy of his Muslim captors. He also failed to highlight the fact that Mr Kassig had “adopted” the only religion that mandates death for those who apostatise from it.

Others who have followed President Obama's way of thinking include two female Italian aid workers, Greta Ramelli and Vanessa Marzullo, kidnapped by Muslims in northern Syria. And Theo Padnos, whose story I recommend that you read in its entirety. It shows precisely how the “Islam is a religion of peace” dogma renders people unable to recognise danger.

And, lest anyone should think that this is just a European problem, in the US children are also being indoctrinated in school to believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

We should observe not only the strange phenomenon of Western leaders rushing to defend the reputation of Islam, but also that the West is subtly introducing blasphemy laws when it comes to that religion, under the guise of "hate-speech" laws. In parts of the world where Muslims are a majority, it is anathema to say anything that may tarnish Islam's reputation. The reputation of the ideology must be maintained at all costs. It is even more important than the human being. As such, the human being may be punished or even destroyed for the sake of preserving the status of the doctrine. That is the kind of society that we are drifting towards. It goes against the worldview developed in the West where the individual is central and respect for the individual trumps - or used to trump - any other ideology, thus producing the notion of freedom of speech. Respect for the individual and respect for freedom of speech are two sides of the same coin.

Leaders in Muslim-majority countries and Islamic leaders in this country fear that Muslims will connect the dots by looking at the effect of Islam across the modern world and reach the common-sense conclusion that it is not a good religion and they will therefore abandon it. Leaders in the West fear that their citizens will look at the effect of Islam across the modern world and reach the conclusion that is not a good religion, and therefore that the multicultural project which feeds its growth here in the West is not a good thing either. Both know that, once the illusions they have fostered are shattered, it will be impossible to reconstruct them.

World's Largest Solar Plant Is a Failure

One of the thousands of birds found dead at the Ivanpah solar plant

"The largest solar power plant of its type in the world [the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, in California] - once promoted as a turning point in green energy - isn't producing as much energy as planned."

Why aren't I surprised?

"One of the reasons is as basic as it gets: The sun isn't shining as much as expected."

A bit like the wind doesn't blow as much or as little as expected, which is why wind farms are useless.

And that's not all. The worst is this: the Ivanpah solar power plant is killing nearly 30,000 birds per year. Birds are being scorched to death mid-air in the idiotic quest for "clean" energy.

Federal wildlife investigators visited the plant and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one "streamer" (as the birds are called for the smoke plume that comes from them as they ignite in midair) every two minutes.

They are now proposing to build an even larger, new 75-storey plant, to be located near a huge bird sanctuary.

From Associated Press:
Sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of federal desert near the California-Nevada border, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System opened in February, with operators saying it would produce enough electricity to power a city of 140,000 homes.

So far, however, the plant is producing about half of its expected annual output for 2014, according to calculations by the California Energy Commission.

It had been projected to produce its full capacity for 8 hours a day, on average.

"Factors such as clouds, jet contrails and weather have had a greater impact on the plant than the owners anticipated," the agency said in a statement.

It could take until 2018 for the plant backed by $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees to hit its annual peak target, said NRG Energy Inc., which operates the plant and co-owns it with Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy.

"During startup we have experienced ... equipment challenges, typical with any new technology, combined with irregular weather patterns," NRG spokesman Jeff Holland said in a statement. "We are confident that Ivanpah's long-term generation projections will meet expectations."

The technology used at Ivanpah is different than the familiar photovoltaic panels commonly used for rooftop solar installations. The plant's solar-thermal system - sometimes called concentrated-solar thermal - relies on nearly 350,000 computer-controlled mirrors at the site, each the size of a garage door.

The mirrors reflect sunlight to boilers atop 459-foot towers - each taller than the Statue of Liberty. The resulting steam drives turbines to create electricity.

When the $2.2 billion complex opened, Energy Department Secretary Ernest Moniz called it a "symbol of the exciting progress" in renewable energy.

While the agency still says the project remains in good standing, Kaitlin Meese, an analyst at research firm Bentek Energy, said its early production figures "do not paint a strong picture for solar-thermal technology development."

The operation of such plants is highly dependent on weather conditions, and predicting when and how strongly the sun will shine is not a perfect science.

A little bit of inefficiency with mirrors can translate into a loss of power output ranging from small to significant, said Dr. Neil Fromer, executive director of the Resnick Sustainability Institute at the California Institute of Technology.