Sunday, 28 October 2007

A Very English Parliament Needed

Here we go again, I just had to listen to a New Labour Minister telling me, an Englishman, that I didn’t want England to have a Parliament, No, what I wanted was Labour dominated “Regional assemblies!” What she didn’t mention was that this was the only way Labour could remain in power if Scotland went fully independent.

The reason why she was out on TV denouncing the Tories, as risking the ‘break up of the Union’ (An absolute disgrace from one of the architects of the new labour model of devolution that set us on the current course), was because the Tories have announced that they are considering English only voting in parliament. This has the backing of the Scottish first minister Alex Salmond who said he supported the idea.

English Only Parliament Has Long History

Ah the duplicities of our political classes …. Listening to Harriet (what’s the party line Gordon?) Harman on TV, just confirms how completely out of touch New Labour are with the 3/4s of England who don't vote for them. She was waffling on again about regionalizing England, despite the fact that the English don't want regional parliaments, as one of the Prescott failures proved.

She was using figures from a BBC commisioned poll in 2002 which showed apparent support for regional government to defend her position, when this was totally discredited by the absolute rejection which was given to the idea by the electorate.

We English have spotted regional parliaments as just jobs for more lazy politicians, and a blatant ruse to perpetuate labour power in the UK for ever. Despite some labour party members claiming that there is no such nation as England (1 & 2), we know that there is and we want our powers back. The increasing differences between Scotland and England over NHS prescriptions, Education fees and other matters make it inevitable that the question has to be dealt with.

The New Labour Government has never been able to properly explain why its fair on the English, that Scots, Irish and Welsh MP’s vote on purely English matters, when English MP’s have no reciprocal say in the regions. The truth that drives all labours 'constitutional reforms', is that in the popular vote, Labour have never won an election purely in England, and have always relied on Scottish and Welsh MP's to hold power.

They are terrified that the twin poisoned chalices of Tony Blair’s legacy, the war in Iraq, and a panicky granting of devolution in Scotland for short term gain, will come back to haunt them for a few generations.

Firstly; by Iraq losing them the next general election, and
Secondly; that (with a Tory Government in the UK), the Scots will take the plunge and give the Scottish National Party (SNP) the mandate it needs for a referendum on full independence.

Without Scotland’s MP’s (and the Welsh, as they will follow the same path), then Labour will never win an English election again. They will be held responsible for the destruction of the UK, and all so that they could feel political power again.

Many Labour thinkers fear that this is an inevitable scenario, and are therefore casting around for some mechanism that will stop or at least delay this happening. Regional government is the only "Big Idea" they have so it's waived around pathetically by anyone who has the strength to do so.

The current situation is very unhealthy, and reflects in the preponderance of Scottish Ministers we have had for the last 10 yrs. They should make more effort to have popular English policies, instead of appealing to the neo socialist; state controlled subsidized sectors of Scotland and Wales.

(1). Hansard 11/05/1999 pt 27: "I was disappointed to hear the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan lab) appeared to say that there was no such thing as England, whereas Scotland and Wales were real countries."

(2). Liberal Democrat Leader of Newcastle City Council, Peter Arnold who insisted extraordinarily that there is no such thing as England. 

This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (

Friday, 26 October 2007

Humans 10,000 yrs in the future

According to latest evolutionary theory findings, humans split from the common ancestor with the Chimpanzees, about 5.4 million years ago which is considerably less time ago than was previously thought to be the case. There was obviously a long period of hybridisation, in which the two proto-species could interbreed, and this cross transfer of genes helped develop the final species of Homo Sapiens.

Why am I discussing this? Well it’s not because I want to have a go at the biblical “Creationists” of all religions, I think that they are fairly scary, but basically pretty naive, with their belief in everything appearing ‘fully formed’ 6,000 yrs ago (Sunday October 23, 4004 BC to be precise, as calculated by Archbishop James Ussher), and that Dinosaurs were co-existing with humans in a Biblical period of miracles. It sounds pretty stupid even as it’s being mouthed, and it takes a very big leap of faith to believe it, faith being the key word.

I am not even knocking the more subtle, but equally stupid ‘unintelligent design’ brigade. They don’t set the timescales that the out and out creationists do, and they pretend that the ‘intelligence’ behind the ‘design’ maybe isn’t ‘God’, but some ‘unknown or unnamed source who might be god’.

Amongst many other issues, this 'Myth Theory' still has the problem that this unknown, or unnamed source, must have existed before the universe did, so where was that then? If the universe was already here, did the intelligent designer just create the earth and moon and all who live upon them? The questions keep coming thick and fast, and ultimately come back to the faith word again.

No, what brought this blog on was the news that a leading geneticist believes that the human race may well be heading for new split in the very near (in genetic terms), period of 10,000 years in the Future.

His speculations are interesting, as he thinks we will all be basically a one colour race by the end of the current millennium, possibly with just some pockets of regressive populations in isolated areas. By the year 3000, humans may well be ‘giants’ between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises. Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, even features, and be happy with the larger penises presumably.

He suspects that further in the future, say 10,000 yrs in the future, the human race will start to decline due to an over reliance on medical drug treatments and labour saving technology, and split into two or maybe three (if the pockets of ‘old humans’ still exist) sub species, with an intelligent 'over man' and a less intelligent 'under man'.

These will be physically different with a tall over class and smaller underclass much like the speculations of H.G. Wells in “The Time Machine”.... The Eloi and the Morlocks

Finally, spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals. Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There are a number of problems with this kind of speculations, in that predictions over a period as short as 30 yrs are usually wrong, so over 1,000 or 10,000 years are even less reliable.

Firstly, colour, it’s hard to see the Orientals cross breeding with African Blacks to the point that they will both become “Coffee coloured”, and the same for the Indians. The white race is busily not breeding enough to ensure their own survival, so the US and Europe may well become coffee coloured as the colour of the only survivors.

Secondly Height and the time scales. The year 3,000 AD is less distant in the future, than the Romans of the past are from us now, and we are not markedly different from a Roman, or anyone else of that period, apart from average height. Studies collated by Jonathan Philip Roth have shown that the average male height in the Roman Imperial period was 170 cm. (5' 7"), which was the average UK height in the 1950's. So in 2,000 yrs we have gained between 2 and 3 inches, and most of that in the last 40 yrs, probably because average diet is a little better.

If we head back to the Norman conquest of a 1,000 yrs ago, the average soldier on both sides was taller than those British soldiers in the Boer War where recruitment standards had to be lowered to as little as 5 foot to find men. During the industrial revolution and urbanisation, average population heights shrunk e.g. In 1860 the average height for a soldier was 5’8", but by the start of the Zulu War in 1879 it had dropped to 5’4" and by 1899 it was nearer 5 foot. In fact the British raised a regiment in 1914 called the Cheshire Bantams whose average height was 5 foot.

Any changes are attributable entirely to diet and protein intakes over the periods. The Japanese were 5 inches smaller than the Americans in 1945, now they are less than 2 inches smaller because they eat better food and have a higher calorie intake.

In fact a look at Japan and China, plus Taiwan and South Korea show this process at work. After 1945 they were all the same heights, now there are marked differences in heights. If this is diet and calorie intake related, then we can expect the Chinese to catch up while Korea / Taiwan / and Japan become the same as the West. Interestingly there appears to be evidence that South Koreans males are 4 inches taller on average than their North Korean counterparts because of dietary differences in the last 50 yrs.

Apart from average height there has been no change in 2,000 yrs so it’s likely that that’s going to be the only difference in a 1,000 yrs time.

OK, let’s move 10,000 yrs into the future. This is twice the period we are from the ancient Egyptians, but still easily within the time scales of the appearance of modern man. In that same period backwards we have shown no greater degree of intelligence or physical changes, and may even be similar in height to then, as this was the end of the hunter gatherer societies. Stature in Scotland over the Centuries indicates that the mean height of males in the NEOLITHIC PERIOD (4000–2500 BC) was 170 cm i.e. the same as the average Roman 4,000 yrs later. Give or take a centimeter this remained the same height through to the early medieval period (AD 400–1000) i.e. the Norman Conquest

The only change since modern man evolved is accumulated knowledge, not native intelligence, and it’s hard to see that we are going be markedly different in 10,000 yrs if we haven’t changed in the previous 10,000. Evolution may be inexorable in its actions but, and this is the important point, it shows no signs of accelerating over a period of time. Rather it appears to be mostly over eons with very odd spurts (under great pressures such as population threatening changes in the environment), certainly not inside 10,000 yrs.

If we have not changed much, if at all, in the last 10,000 years then why would that suddenly kick in, in the next 10,000 yrs?

The rise of computers and machinery is not likely to turn us into domesticated animals, nor lessen the use of intelligence, and may actually accelerate the growth of brains because we will need them more to control our robotic societies. Physical changes may occur but these will be attributable to activities rather than evolution, much like height has been linked to diet.

We have been getting less hairy for 50,000 yrs, but the hair loss in that period has not been very noticeable, so this prediction, though true, is not going to be something a visitor from our time would remark on. As for women getting lighter skins, its hard to square that with us all turning ‘coffee coloured’ in the same period.

If populations stopped moving round the globe, the genes for UV protection in the very Northern (or presumably very Southern areas) would mutate and skin colours would turn even African people lighter over a long enough period (as happened 40,000 yrs ago, but if the populations keep mixing no one will get lighter.

In modern people from equatorial areas, dark skin and hair is needed to guard against skin cancer caused by strong UV radiation from the Sun. By contrast, pale skin - along with red or blond hair - appears to be the product of lower levels of sunlight present in areas further from the equator such as Europe.

Once you leave Africa, the selective pressure from UV radiation disappears. So any mutation that falls into the MC1R gene (that controls skin colours) is allowed to survive and spread through a population, but people with fair skin are able to generate more vitamin D, which may give them an evolutionary advantage in northern regions so white, paler skins develop.

Finally, if we look far into the future the human race may well lose their teeth (or some of them) because we are eating processed mush, but one has to suspect that we are bright enough to make that mush of variable textures so that a reasonable amount of chewing is required, we keep or teeth and muscles in our jaws.

Entertaining speculations, but easily countered by any number of alternative futures just as likely. I guess my point is that, although this kind of speculation is fun, it's just as easy to make a case for another future.

1,000 yrs into the future
  • The white population is a bit darker due to a higher incidence of interracial breeding, but the vast majority of Africans, South Asians and Orientals are unchanged in colour.
  • The average male will be less fit than before, because they spend more time on the keyboard and less on exercises.
  • More people (women and men) will go bald as there is no purpose to hair.
  • There will be some average height increases world wide as areas where diet improves catch up, but the average will still be around 6ft because there is less advantage on being tall in societies that work via computers.
10,000 yrs into the future.
  • People may well be born with no hair, and stay that way.
  • There are not two or three 'races', because the gene pool is more resistant to alteration than predicted, and the major divisions are in evidence, although there may be more concentration on particularly popular or succesful Archtypes for each race. (The Beckham affect).
  • There will be considerably less people on the planet, after the peak of 3,000 AD, but there will be less calories per head on a planet much reduced by environmental damage. The average height has reduced to 5'6" and falling to match the calorie intake.
This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (

Tuesday, 23 October 2007

Projected UK immigration and Population figures

The cat is finally out of the bag on race and immigration into the UK, although the stunning silence from our PC politicians is deafening. The Tories have said something after a day, and the liberals, well what do we expect. The Government says as little as it can apart from claiming that it's controlling the situation after ten years in power, and the BNP has to say nothing.

All this because it’s finally been confirmed, what we all have felt happening, that is that if current trends in immigration continue the
population of the UK will rise to 75 million and that 30% of the population will be ‘non white’ by 2051. The Government has denied this and said it will be only 71 million, and that’s as far as they are going on the subject.

We are gradually turning our own country from a first world predominately Judeo/Christian country; into probably a Muslim threatened one. We already have shifted laws to accommodate the 3% of the population who are Muslim, so what it will be like in the UK when they are nearer 10%?

The imposition of
Sharia Law beckons for areas of the country, because there is not one historical example of Muslims not imposing it when they have enough manpower to enforce it. In dome towns they will via the council be able to impose or demand it. Dhimmitude is the term for non Muslims who go like cattle to the yoke of subservience, and we are dangerously close to being a Dhimmi nation.

Have we ever been asked about this, has anyone said do you wish to completely alter the nature of your society? You can bet your sweet arse we haven’t. As on so many other issues, our much vaunted democracy has failed the general public and proved to be merely an elected dictatorship.

This subject has become impossible to discuss without being labelled a racist, or risking a criminal prosecution for incitement to racial hatred. Oddly the more pressing the problem the less you are able to discuss it, with more legal protections for even the worst of the migrants than to the native population.

One day someone is going to look back on this period and declare our society as mad, but deserving of its fate, because it just sat back and with barely a murmur allowed self serving politicians to make the biggest social engineering decision in history, the complete eradication of a basic culture. How English or British will we be with 10 million new commonwealth immigrants.

When you consider that barely 60 yrs ago this culture ruled a third of the globe, this collapse will be all the more dramatic. We may even be heading towards a civil war because ‘white flight’ to Australia and Canada will only take 5 million of the native population away from the issue.

BNP will reap the votes of the dissatisfied, and the mainstream will ring their hand. The sheer costs of providing the additional houses, hospitals, schools, roads etc are staggering. It’s as though everyone in Belgium moved to the UK and we had to build the country from scratch.

I will leave the final words to the professor who wrote the report because you can bet that this will be buried by the news makers very quickly and certainly won’t spark the debate it deserves in a real democracy.

"The absent-minded commitment into which we have drifted, to house a further 15m people, must be the biggest unintended consequence of government policy of almost any century," he told peers.

"As it is by no means unavoidable, being almost entirely dependent upon continued immigration, it might be thought worthy of discussion. In official circles, there has been none."

Guess what, not more than a month after these figures caused such a furore, the Government announces that well, actually those figures were a massive underestimate, and in reality the UK population could be at 110m in 2081 .... 75 million was just to get us used to the idea of completely eroding Britain / England as a european nation. The new figures from the Government Actuary's Department, predict that the net population growth from immigration will probably be just short of 200,000 a year until 2021 - but adds it could peak in the near future at 300,000 a year.

Below is a Poll link to a question that allows anyone to let their thoughts be known. It’s the nearest anyone in the UK will get to having a say.

Should Non EU immigration to the UK be halted immediately?
No, we should have fully open borders.
No, there should be stricter controls, but some Non EU immigration.
Yes, Non EU immigration should be halted now.
No, All immigration should be halted, not just Non EU immigration. free polls
This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (

Monday, 22 October 2007

Something else to hate the Brits for

Well according to most of the world that's a lot of things, and you can even sub divide it down to the ‘English’ and let the Scots, Welsh and Irish join in.

But as an Englishman I am above such petty concerns and colonial envy, however I will concede one area for which we are guilty as hell…. The Suit and Tie.

According to sources, our modern suit derives from an evolutionary path of over 400 yrs, but the fact is that it was that man George Bryan Brummell who came up with the Suit, Shirt and tie (cravat) that has strangled mankind ever since.

Of all the things that would become universal, who would have thought that a form of dress designed solely for the leisured classes of the Court of the Prince Regent (George the fourth of England), would become the most worn formal male apparel in the world?

It’s uncomfortable, and in hot climates totally inappropriate, and yet there you are, pictures of Chinese communist leaders wearing suits,

African Somali warlords, and winners of international good governance prizes, both wearing suits without any apparent sense of incongruity

and here are generally every Nabob and Grandee the world over doing the same.

As a man who instantly undoes his shirt button and wears a tie loosely, I can only offer sympathy to every man around the world who has suffered with the tie and the suit.


This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (

Thursday, 18 October 2007

Race, IQ and Wealth

A Nobel Prize winner Dr James Watson has got himself into hot water with the PC brigade by suggesting that there is a connection between race, national wealth and intelligence. Predictably this has got the shouts of “Racist” ringing loudly, although just as predictably there has been no evidence offered against his comments other than that they "were deeply offensive" or “irrational prejudices”.

The remarks in an interview with The Sunday Times, were that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". He went on to say he hoped everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

Oddly, there is in fact considerable, if controversial, evidence on the connection between national wealth, race and intelligence, and the efforts to refute this are often based, not on the science (such as it is), but on prejudices against it being true. The fear that we do have inherent strengths or weaknesses related to our ‘race’, is because this would fly against certain doctrines that are currently fashionable, not least of which is that everyone is the same. Strangely, when it comes to physical attributes such as 100 metre running, where black athletes clearly have the natural physical advantages, that's somehow OK for white liberals to discuss, but when it comes to natural cerebral advantages that's not acceptable.

There are those who propose that, as there is only one race who simply have different skin colours, there can be no other physical difference such as running ability, or natural intelligence differences, this despite that fact that even within one race type, there are accepted intelligence differences that are tested for during schooling (some leave school not able to read or write, while others end up as nuclear scientists ... i.e. they are not the same intelligence). Only when skin colour is involved, illogically this same acceptance of possible differences no longer applies somehow.

Perhaps the most compelling modern evidence of the relation between wealth, intelligence and race, is the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Dr’s Lynn and Vanhanen in 2002. The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) correlate with differences in average national IQ. Predictably this has been criticised, but when you look at the richest countries, the median wealth countries, the rapidly developing countries, and the undeveloped or broken countries there are 'racial' differences in the composition of these countries, and one ethnic group tends to populate most of the latter slots.

For Example I have listed the categories in the order we popularly consider wealthy countries or regions, and placed the IQ figures in brackets.


North America (100) / Western Europe (100) / Japan (105):


Hong Kong (107) / Australia (100) / New Zealand (100) /Argentina (100) / Taiwan (105) / S Korea (105)

Rapidly Developing:

China (105) / India (100) / Pakistan (100) / Eastern Europe (100) / *Brazil (85 - 100)

*Brazil, has such wide gaps between the wealth and education of the rich and poor populations that one part is high IQ and developed, while there is a large part of the population who are not. These poorer communities are usually of native Amerindian or African descent.

Underdeveloped / Poor with slow growth:

**Iran (85) / Arab countries (85)  / Latin America exc Brazil (85)

** Iran has made big efforts to improve the education system since the figures were collated, and should be in the rapidly developing group quite soon, especially if it can stop the sanctions.

Poorest by PCGDP:

Sub Saharan Africa (70)


The IQ figures were based on calculations of average IQ scores for 81 countries, based on their analysis of reports published from each country itself. So it was hard to criticise them as inherently ‘racist’, especially as they clearly showed that Orientals were more intelligent than those of European descent. However there was no consistency in the methodology of how these results were derived in each country, and this makes them less robust for comparisons, than results obtained via a consistent methodology.

The conclusion; Well over half (about 58 per cent), of the differences in national wealth, can be explained in terms of national differences in average intelligence. Each IQ point above 70 in the national average, was worth about $850 in PCGDP (Per Capita GDP). However Black Africa occupies most of the bottom positions. White descent countries currently hold the top slots, but the Orientals will soon occupy the top slots, if IQ figures are correct. Note: The criticisms of the methodology used to arrive at the figures are at the bottom of this link.

So on the basis of these figures, there appears to be a definite correlation between Race and Wealth. Which seems to prove that Dr Watson has a something of a point if you accept that economic success is a measure of national intelligence, and this is evident even when you disregard the disputed IQ figures. It’s hard not to look at the history of the Sub Saharan African states and the Caribbean countries, since the end of the colonial era, and not suspect that there are reasons why they have gone backward in development and wealth over the last 40 years.

The authors also proposed that there is a positive feedback mechanism at work that means that the poorer a country is, the lower its average IQ, and the lower its IQ, the lower its PCGDP. However this doesn't reasonably explain the Oriental or South Asian nations rise from absolute poverty levels that were worse than Black Africa in the 1950’s, but who are now three or four times more wealthy than them now.

This is one of those subjects that the PC and chattering classes refuse to discuss rationally, and that the rest of us feel has some possible validity, but have been told we can’t discuss. Our Victorian ancestors considered this was a valid opinion, and it's no secret that the Chinese and Japanese both considered other races to be inferior (including the Europeans). Even now Arabs enslave and treat black Muslims as inferiors e.g. Darfur.

I don't know if in actuality there is a difference, or if its more cultural i.e. those cultures or sub-cultures that don't value education, score poorly in tests, and in the long term in economic performance, but the fact that we aren't allowed to discuss if there is any differences, is enough for me to wonder if there might be.  

The 87 countries listed by IQ are:

Update: Further thoughts on wealth creation here.

This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (

Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Beheading and Human sacrifice to Gods

Beheading and Human sacrifice in history

Firstly when is it human sacrifice and when is it merely a form of punishment? The answer seems to lie in who is relating the story. History is always written by the victors so they say, and that seems to have greatly influenced what we consider human sacrifice or not.

For example everyone knows that the Mexican Aztecs (and possibly the Peruvian Incas) practised ‘human sacrifice and cannibalistic ceremony’s’ and there is no denying the evidence of the codec’s, and from the city of Zultapec, where the skull rack of prisoners including Spaniards have been found. The Aztec codec’s illustrate that captured horses were also sacrificed in the same manner.

Without doubt the priests took the lives of prisoners of war by cutting their hearts and entrails out using flint or obsidian knives. Occasionally there were cannibalistic events after the sacrifice, but the religious significance of this is not truly understood apart from the obvious “gaining of strength from the meat of the enemy”.

However it’s obvious that this ‘sacrifice’ was of a religious nature, and wasn’t performed merely for punishment or pleasure. The Aztec belief system involved various gods many of whom had sacrificed themselves in order to keep the universe or cosmos moving, and it was this that is mimicked in their sacrifices.

The Aztecs had many subjugated races in the empire who need the occasional ‘shock and awe’ to keep them in line. The skulls were passed around the subjected races to ensure the message was taken in. From the Aztec point of view this was not anything more than a Eucharist event is to Catholics i.e. partly religious and part symbolism.

The Aztec 'Tzompantli' or 'Skull Rack'

Other pre modern human ‘sacrifice’ cultures:

Pre history is full of evidence of cannibalism in Neolithic times. It seems inconceivable that this did not involve ‘sacrificing’ the victims i.e. the victims weren’t merely murdered and eaten, so this was probably the first instances of human sacrifice.

The Druids of pre Roman Britain practised human sacrifice, and there is evidence for this from the Irish bog bodies, as well as the ‘wicker man’ ceremonies that survived in more remote areas.

The Norse carried out large scale human sacrifices at major centres such as the Temple at Uppsala, and the Viking ‘Blood Eagle’ was something to fear from Damascus to York. These sacrifices went on up until 1087 AD (and probably beyond in some remote places).

In Christianity, the Eucharist event is a symbol of blood and sacrifice to Catholics and other Christian sects. Surely, Christ’s willingness to go to the cross, was a ‘sacrifice’ to absolve mankind of its sins, the last lamb so to speak? The continuing practise of kourbània (sacrificing animals, usually lambs, to saints), in some remote parts of Greece is thought to be a hang over from pre Christian practises. Human sacrifice has never been a feature of the religion.

Judaism had a long history of animal sacrifice, but it died out after the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70 AD. Human sacrifice has never been a feature of the religion although Abraham (Ibrahim in the Islamic tradition), was supposed to have been asked to sacrifice his first born to Jehovah. The myth of Jewish sacrifices carried on into the modern era as a racial slander such the blood slander and the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

Some versions of Islam still hold animal sacrifice (Qurban) to be acceptable during certain ‘religious’ festivals. This involves cutting the throat of a live (conscious) animal. Ironically it’s often these very same groups who keep the myth of the blood slander against the Jews alive.

In more recent times the worshippers of the Hindu Goddess Kali in India, known as ‘Thuggee’s’ were known to kill humans for religion, and used a ritualistic method of strangling (that also kept the noise down), wherever possible. They were wiped out in the 19th century.

The criminal punishments of 17th century Europe look like a form of sacrifice to most modern people’s eyes – Unspeakable torture was common in criminal cases, and especially for traitors as recently as the 18th century. Being ‘Hung, drawn and quartered’ or ‘burnt at the stake’ was surely a human sacrifice on some level, as well as a punishment.

The full punishment could still be administered as late as 1814 AD in Britain, although in practise the last person to suffer the punishment in the UK was a Scotsman in 1782 AD, and the last in a British colony was 1797 AD.

Interestingly judicial torture i.e. for criminal court cases, had all but died out by 1605 in the UK, when it took a letter of authority from the King to allow Guy Fawkes to be tortured, and torture was completely abolished in England by 1640 AD and in Europe by the 1790’s. Although with the extreme punishments if found guilty, it was only a partial relief.

Modern forms:

Outside of the ‘civilised world’, human sacrifice has never completely been halted. Indeed even in the 20th century the Communists had their show trials followed by executions in Russia. This was a ritualised form of 'sacrifice' with a repentance and punishment all carried out in a public manner.

Today we have for example the ritualised torture and public beheading of the victims of certain groups from Africa to Asia. Just this year a Kenyan sect beheaded six people, but this is rare, and by far the greatest number of these stories comes from Islamic sources, such as the story of a twelve year old boy who beheaded his first victim this year.

The use of torture by Arab states is well documented from Egypt, through Saudi Arabia to Syria, all have current records of judicial and extra judicial torture, but beheading is rare (and even the actual executions of the death penalty are quite rare) so the ‘sacrificial’ element is lacking from the disgusting practises.

There is now an active strand of Islam that first tortures, then sacrifices by beheading (‘qata al-raas’) their victims in the name of Allah, by that I mean that the crime is portrayed as the “Will of Allah”.

This is nothing new as beheading is the preferred Arab way of killing prisoners, including the one-year-old baby boy Ali Asghar in Karbala in 680 AD, as part of the killings that birthed the Shia’s. It is considered to be ‘humane’ to behead a victim rather than hanging for example, but with the gun available, it appears that there are certain sacrificial aspects to beheading, that keep terrorists using the method.

The BBC quoted one Pakistani militant, 'Faisal', who said "cutting off the head is the best and most humane way to kill. When the head is removed from the body the soul is immediately released. Whereas when you hang a person, the soul has to struggle to escape from the mouth. If we want to punish someone, we cut his head from the back of the neck, instead of the throat," says Faisal. "That is very painful and its takes a long time to die." One of the group, we are told, has decapitated 53 men.

From the videotapes of a beheading, that accompanies every kidnap of Westerners, to the mass slaughter of Muslim prisoners who are tied and bound in Iraq and Algeria, modern Islam appears to have retreated into some mirror image of an ancient bloody past, where bloodthirsty winged devils, and gory altars haunted the ancient Middle East.

You don't need to understand Arabic to get the message of those videos of a beheading, with their rituals and liturgy from the mosque. The sermon, read by a self styled imam precedes the sacrifice, when the human calf, bound and shivering with terror (apart from the brave Italian hostage), has his or her throat slit, by the "imam."

This ‘imam’ may well be the local halal butcher, as was found to be the case in Algeria, where ‘Momo le Nain’, aka Mohammed the Midget, a butchers apprentice, beheaded many prisoners. On one memorable night in 1996, in Ben-Talha, a suburb of the capital Algiers, ‘Momo’ cut off a record 86 heads in one night, that included taking the heads of more than a dozen children.

This search for victims includes not just those who oppose the spread of the faith, but pretty well anyone the Imams dislike, such as women. In Pakistan in 2007 two women were beheaded for being prostitutes. This follows the beheading of ten soldiers in the Philippines and the beheading of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia in 2005.

We could be watching events from 4,000 years ago, not the 21st century and how long before the first western victims in Europe, Australia or the US? The terrorists may well only ‘mimic the rituals of the faith’, but for Muslim or non Muslim apologists to declare it as ‘Non Islamic’ to behead or torture, is to display an ignorance of the Quran and Hadiths, or to lie.

(Quran: Sura Al-Muhammad 47:4)
So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm or at least come under your protection.

Or maybe:

(Quran: Sura 47, Verse 4)
As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks'”.

There are many more quotes of a similar nature that taken out of context, or literally, support the terrorist’s theology. In fact it’s because of these apparent Quranic endorsements of torture, that a religion, where every man with a turban can claim to be a scholar of the faith, has produced so few or no public condemnations of the ritualised beheadings being beamed almost nightly on Arab TV or the Internet.

Who would have thought that human sacrifice in the name of a world religion would once again stalk the earth in the 21st Century?

The biography of one of these Islamic killers.

This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (

Thursday, 11 October 2007


Unused as I am to comments on my blog site, I therefore felt obliged to respond to a request from one of these rare birds, to take a look at the website 1party4all which she has set up.

The site has the blurb “This website takes a different approach to democracy: instead of voting on parties and personalities, you can vote on specific policies. Called ‘direct’ or ‘pure’ democracy, it empowers the population to voice its opinion on specific policy issues, allowing "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" to be expressed.

Members are encouraged to look at the poll questions and vote regularly. The answers will form a large of the "personality" of this website. It hopes to reflect British public opinion without fear of favour. Fringe party issues of both "Right" and "Left" will be addressed, but the intention is to bring in people of all persuasions who are dissatisfied with the way the country is being run and think they have better ideas.

And according to the biography of its founder Andromeda, it’s been set up by an ‘accountancy, political commentator’, LOL, so make of that what you will. She also has a blog site of her own, ‘The Voice of Reason’, where you can learn some of her personal views via her regular blogs.

Anyway, back to the 1party4all website.

Visitors are allowed to view existing polls in the “chamber of debate”, but you can only vote by becoming a member, or AAA Awarded member. There is also a comment box which you can complete, but have to be a member to get any accepted.

I navigated round the site, and everything appeared to work OK. The only observations I would have are:
  • It is not clear how particular subjects are raised e.g. who is raising the topics. Obviously this and the wording of the question influence the results.
E.g. I have found this example of a real poll question, not from the 1party4all site illustrating how the wording of questions can influence the results.
  1. In general, do you think a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion? Yes - 67% No - 29%
  2. In general, do you think the lives of unborn babies should be protected? Yes - 69% No - 19%
The wording of these questions produced conflicting results to essentially the same question, just put with a different slant and bias. It illustrates the importance of knowing how and who sets the questions.
  • The polls do not show how many votes were required to achieve a particular result. If for example a question had 75% support, but there were only four votes (3 for and 1 against), then it’s ‘interesting’, but statistically meaningless and unrepresentative.
  • Finally, they have a standard result, and a multiple vote result, which appears to be set as 50% for, and 50% against on nearly all the questions. It’s not immediately clear what the point of this is, and confuses the results. Do you look at the standard or the multi vote?

I understand why a new site would be forced to keep respondent numbers from being shown until it has enough voters/members to have statistical significance, but it is a weakness.

Conclusion, if the site takes off it could be an interesting indicator of public opinion on subjects of great debate. In the meantime it’s a political forum where people of a like mind can chat and vote on various subjects. 

This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (

Muslim scholars letter to Christian Leaders

"Muslim scholars reach out to Pope" is the headline as today, a number of Muslim ‘scholars’ have issued an open letter to the Pope and other Christian leaders stating that for the ‘sake of world peace’ there should be greater ‘understanding’ between Christianity and Islam.

The letter apparently emphasises the commonalities of the religions such as the worship of the ‘same god’, the shared prophets, and that Mohammad was told the same truths that had already been revealed to other prophets, Christian and Jewish, including Jesus.

They also cite the Koran as placing a duty on Muslims to treat Christians and Jews as followers of those prophets with particular friendship. The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

Very laudable I am sure, but sadly these ‘scholars’ have few followers amongst the radicals, or the masses of Islam. As I write this, Christians are being taught Islam at the point of a sword all across Asia and the Middle East. In Iraq and Pakistan, the small Christian communities are told to convert, leave or be killed. In fact the very actions that these ‘Muslim scholars’ say is what Christians must not do to them.

The Mullahs on the ground, often badly educated and full of hate, preach violence and aggression not peace and tolerance, and that’s just in the UK. They believe that all other religions are to be killed or forced into ‘Dhimmitude’ i.e. second class citizens forced to pay a special tax for the privilege of not being killed.

Given this background, this open letter can be read as a kind of threat ‘if you don’t treat us in a certain way then …..’ but we can treat you exactly in this manner, and you must say nothing or accept it as your Allah given role.

Monday, 8 October 2007

Democracy is a myth

The BBC is having a week of programmes on why democracy? – the basic line is that democracy is basically good or if not good then as Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

But define a western democracy?

Is it just one man one vote, or is it free and independent political parties, or is it a free judiciary defending whatever system and rights that the constitution specifies, or is it a combination of all these, and other things?

I ask because many would site the UK as a good example of a Western democracy, but I would argue that what we have is an elected Dictatorship. That in our current system, only once every four or five years, do the political parties ‘listen’ to what the electorate says, only to then promptly do what’s best for themselves for the rest of the time.

We have no control over them, they vote for their own pay rises, supervise their own corruption cases (expenses are regularly abused and kept secret), they feather nest themselves with the only pension scheme that our 'unelected' Prime Minister Gordon Brown couldn’t damage while he was Chancellor.

Polls regularly show strong support for the death penalty, or whole of life prison sentences, for major crimes such as raping, and or killing children. What does parliament give us? Maybe a ten year sentence (and it can be as low as two) and out in two thirds of the time.

The Polls show that we want more say over agreements with Europe such as treaties and pacts. What do we get, nothing, the whole thing is repackaged and our democratic Prime Minister says that its up to him to decide if anything needs a referendum, despite an election manifesto promise (A perfect example of what I am pointing out, if ever one was wanted).

Polls show that the English want Scots, Welsh and Irish MP’s to not be allowed to vote on purely English matters. What do we get? The Government needs these non English votes, so they carry on voting for policies that don’t apply to them, or their constituents.

So where is the democracy in the UK system? It’s certainly not accountable in any real sense, and it’s not responsive to the public’s wishes, so why is it democratic?

A western democracy is a pale shell of the ideal and has never been more than an elaborate way of ensuring the same people as always run us. Virtually every member of the Cabinet and the opposition Shadow cabinet went to a grammar or public school, and most of them come from the same elite that have ruled us for centuries.

Now that the political parties are all dancing on the same ground, it’s purely a lip service democracy, and only in form rather than the result, is it that much different from that practised by oligarchs in the Middle East or elsewhere. It’s only the rule of law that prevents it being the same as those benighted states...

Sunday, 7 October 2007

Muslims Against Sharia and for Reform

Below is the Goals / Manifesto of a group called


They seem worthy enough. Certainly no one reasonable could object to the aims listed below, but if they represent 0.01% of the Muslim community, I would be surprised at it being that high!

The problem is that the term 'no one reasonable' is exactly the one least likely to hit the target audience. Islam is currently a form of indoctrination, more like a cult, than a thoughtful religion and so if these worthy souls were to go public, with pictures, offices and contact details, they would most likely be attacked, whether Muslims or not.

The biggest indicators of a cult are

  1. The inability to leave it without hassle. Ask anyone who has been in the Moonies, or Scientologists about this. Islam kills anyone who renounces it, and
  2. The inability to question the creed or its interpretation. Few live to question, even in the most diffident manner the tenants of Islam.
that makes it a cult in my view. Still, they are worth our support, if they even make one radical stop and think for a second.


  • to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
  • to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)
  • to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror


Acknowledging mistakes
The majority of the terrorist acts of the last three decades, including the 9/11 attacks, were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists in the name of Islam. We, as Muslims, find it abhorrent that Islam is used to murder millions of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Inconsistencies in the Koran
Unfortunately, Islamic religious texts, including the Koran and the Hadith contain many passages, which call for Islamic domination and incite violence against non-Muslims. It is time to change that. Muslim fundamentalists believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah. But could Allah, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate, command mass slaughter of people whose only fault is being non-Muslim?

The Koran & the Bible
Many Bible figures from Adam to Jesus (Isa) are considered to be prophets and are respected by Islam. Islamic scholars however believe that both the Old and the New Testament came from God, but that they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians over time. While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does. Could it be possible that the Koran itself was corrupted by Muslims over the last thirteen centuries?

The need for reform
Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past. We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

Accepting responsibilities
To start the healing process, we must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils. We must remove evil passages from Islamic religious texts, so that future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages. Our religious message should be loud and clear: Islam is peace; Islam is love; Islam is light. War, murder, violence, divisiveness & discrimination are not Islamic values.

Religious privacy
Religion is the private matter of every individual. Any person should be able to freely practice any religion as long as the practice does not interfere with the local laws, and no person must be forced to practice any religion. Just as people are created equal, there is no one religion that is superior to another. Any set of beliefs that is spread by force is fundamentally immoral; it is no longer a religion, but a political ideology.

Islam is one of the many of the world's religions. There will be no Peace and Harmony in the World if Muslims and non-Muslims do not have equal rights. Islamic supremacy doctrine is just as repulsive as Aryan supremacy doctrine. History clearly shows what happens to the society whose members consider themselves above other peoples. All moderate Muslims must repudiate the mere notion of Islamic supremacy.

Sharia Law must be abolished, because it is incompatible with norms of modern society.

Outdated practices
Any practices that might have been acceptable in the Seventh Century; i.e., stoning, cutting off body parts, marrying and/or having sex with children or animals, must be condemned by every Muslim.

Outdated verses
The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such.

Outdated words & phrases
Use of the following words and phrases or their variations must be prohibited during religious services:
• Infidel / Unbeliever: these terms have negative connotation and promote divisiveness and animosity; Islam is not the only religion
• Jihad: this word is often interpreted as Holy War against non-Muslims
• Mujaheed/Holy Warrior: no more wars in the name of Islam
• American (Christian / Crusader / Israeli / Zionist) occupation: these terms promote bigotry; at this point in time, Muslims living in non-Muslim lands have more freedoms than Muslims living in Muslim lands

Islam vs. violence
Islam has no place for violence. Any person calling for an act of violence in the name of Islam must be promptly excommunicated. Any grievances must be addressed by lawful authorities. It is the religious and civic duty of every Muslim to unconditionally condemn any act of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam. Any Muslim group that has ties to terrorism in any way, shape, or form, must be universally condemned by both religious and secular Muslims.

Portrayal of Prophets
While portrayal of Prophets is not an acceptable practice in Islam could be personally offensive to some Muslims, other religions do not have such restrictions. Therefore, the portrayal of the Prophets must be treated as a manifestation of free expression.

The Crusades vs. The Inquisition
While the Inquisition was a repulsive practice by Christian Fundamentalists, the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims.

Brothers and Sisters!
Do not make the next generation of Muslims clean up your mess!
Fight Islamic Fascism now, so your children won't have to!

This post is from the site No PC Views. if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen. You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (


Blog Archive

Its a Pucking World

Its a Pucking World
Dreamberry Wine Cover

Blog Search Links

Search in Google Blogs

About Me

My photo
A middle aged orange male ... So 'un' PC it's not true....