Are jihadists born?

When I ask the question, 'Are Jihadists born?' I mean have they inherited the mindset to become a religious fighter; have they inherited a character who previously was an Islamic Jihadist?
Recently, Islamic State fighters born in the UK, have been identified as rather 'normal' boys and girls showing little of their inclinations to religious fighting as they grew older. Even close family members have admitted to the media that they had no idea of the youngster's true intent. Often they point to radicalisation in the local mosque but I wonder if there is a more obvious explanation for this extreme behaviour.
Readers of my book, 'Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions' or watched one of my 'Davies Hypothesis' videos will know that I believe that characters (souls) can be inherited, unlike hair and eye colour, from many generations earlier. Clearly this together with modern day nurturing will complete the task of character building but I wonder if, despite being brought up in 21st century, Britain, there will be in the youngster's psyche a persistent call to arms in the same struggle as the ancestor. It may, indeed, go back to the crusades, perhaps 60 to 70 generations ago.
This represents a rather alarming possibility as each new generation of Muslims can inherit this trait, as most of their forebears will be of Middle East or Anatolian origin, and overcome their natural inclination to feel British in support of another, antagonistic, ideal.
Of course, this theory doesn't only apply to Moslems. Young British men and women, from non-military families, will want to join the army and again this might reflect a character drawn from many generations earlier, perhaps fighting battles in other parts of the world.

The codes of conduct of religions and the Mafia

A local Lay preacher has acknowledged that he was wrong to equate the word 'church' with a building when the context clearly associated it with a congregation of people assembled for the purpose of joint worship. In the New Testament, the 'Church' never referred to as a place of worship.

Over time, the assembled worthies became wrapped in the tradition, myth and liturgy of a religion which now controls many aspects of life, usually, under an umbrella protocol that those not 'in' are therefore, 'out' and labelled heretic. Order is maintained by the fear fuelled suggestion of eternal punishment in the life after death.

This 'protocol' reminds me of a similar arrangement to be found in a Mafia family.

Benefit/ Responsibilities	CHURCH	MAFIA
Security/Protection	Love of God in life. Heaven after death	Protection from Authority and prosecution. Family looked after post mortem
Respect for the institution.	Blasphemy. Punishable by imprisonment, death or disestablishment.	Omerta. Punishable by death
Justice	Excommunication. Alienation Death. Stoning, crucifixion	Withdrawal of protection. Death. Confirmation Communion (Body not found)
Leaving	Apostasy. Death	Coffin

Mario Puzo, the author of the Godfather helpfully tells us that the Mafia use the euphemisms 'confirmation' and 'communion' to describe executions where the body is found or not.

The similarity in the codes of conduct is revealing; they rely on the primal instinct of fear to maintain order.

It is likely that tens of thousands of people have died at the hands of Mafia 'soldiers' but this pales into insignificance compared with the millions killed as a result of religious strife.

People should unshackle themselves from the yoke of Religious lies and intolerance, take all organised religions to 'communion', and embrace the honesty of secularism engaging with the innate spirituality that touches the heart of all humans.

Open up the synagogues, mosques and churches and free the congregations to do good by dispensing love, supporting the needy and caring for those less fortunate than us. Always remember the Golden Rule, to do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Watch my video at:   https://youtu.be/l3NT---Bx5g  

Treasury Brexit Forecasts

The Chancellor and his Treasury team presented his departments best effort in predicting the financial outcomes of the UK leaving the EU. They looked at several options, Canada, Norway, for instance, comparing them unfavourably against the 'Remain' figures. What else! They wouldn't have published a 200 page report that didn't support Cameron's position with project fear. It is blackmail; vote 'Remain' or else.

As with all economic forecasts, especially those augmented by ridiculous equations, the figures cannot be either verified or relied upon to give an accurate picture of the future. What can, however, be verified is that Brexit allows the UK to recover more control over its destiny. It gives back to the UK its total sovereignty at a time when commentators are becoming increasingly sceptical about the future of the EU and the Euro. What about controlling immigration? what about the supremacy of the UK's Supreme Court over the EU Court of Human Rights? what about having our governance in the hands of elected politicians, not ludicrously highly paid and unelected officials? It is about these uncostable factors that Osborne has nothing to say. He is happy to bargain the Country's soul, our traditions and values for MONEY, for financial considerations only when many other, more patriotic, Tories are advocating the 'Leave' option. He and his team do not care that the small island is overrun with people from eastern Europe and beyond, diluting the UK's incredible character, infusing it with different and ALIEN cultures and practices, changing our inner cities beyond recognition with ghettos. The Country can't rely on Corbyn and the Labour Party who have pinned their colours to the Socialist EU mast that promises Workers and Trade Union rights. Not responsibilities, you note.

The Chancellor and his team do not seem to realise that the citizens of the UK know that there is much more to Sovereignty than money. The Chancellor and his team are nothing more than pimps selling the Country's honour to foreigners for cash.

Is tax avoidance a form of betrayal?

A person who deliberately manoeuvres his finances to avoid paying otherwise due taxes is effectively saying that the costs of running the country should be borne by the less well off, the less privileged in the community; dare I say it, the plebs. Although avoiding paying taxes is not illegal, is there not a whiff of betraying one's community by taking steps to not fully contribute to the costs of state. It may be legal but is it amoral? Politicians take note; it is not necessarily a private matter, there may be consequences. It suggests, for instance, that we are not all in it together.

Steel and Thorium

There is a threat to the UK steel industry, assailed on many sides, which could result in the end of steel production at, for instance, Port Talbot in South Wales. One of the main problems is the high cost of energy, necessary for the operation of blast furnaces and other processes integral to all metal industries such as extrusion and rolling. The energy industry is also at a time of upheaval as the UK moves away from fossil fuels and towards renewables and nuclear power.
Followers of this blog will know that I am a keen fan of more research into Thorium nuclear energy. Would it be a good idea for the UK government to build an experimental thorium reactor at Port Talbot so that both the energy and the steel industries benefit, with spare energy being fed into the National Grid. This would benefit the UK steel industry but also catapult the UK into the lead in thorium technology, giving rise to the opportunity of enormous foreign exports. Instead of importing French nuclear energy we could be selling them the latest reactors. Why not?
Tough times need tough and bold decisions.