Dhimmis D'Jour

Excellent reflexive dhimmitude on show at the 'hideously white' BBC Six O'Clock News yesterday. There was a segment featuring a BBC reporter wandering around Tower Hamlets, reporting on life in the big city. At one point our man is walking down the road when he is stopped by a mob of Muslims who tell him he's entering 'Bangladesh' and there are no whites allowed down their road. Breaths were held across the country as viewers contemplated the possibility that the Beeb may actually be caught telling the truth about the Small Minority of Extremists setting up Islamic enclaves in British cities. Fortunatly, the reporter in question made sure to tell us on his V/O that he 'didn't feel threatened' by the mob. Doubtless, the Beeb will be similarly supportive of any small towns which object to Muslims moving in, providing they do it in a non-threatening way.

Brilliant

As I usually do when I find myself teetering on the edge of an emotional breakdown, I turned to morning talk shows for guidance.

Liberal Larry gets to grips with morals.

Police Brutality

PC DC compares the doctrines of Sir Robert Peel, founder of modern British Policing, with those of Sir John Stevens, Nu Lab sock puppet. It ain't pretty, but someones got to do it.

Meanwhile, approproatly enough, Merseyside Police (cops for sale or rent)reveal that they've identified the real enemy. Let no man say that the Police have a warped sense of priorities.

I Don't Remember Derek Hatton Blowing Up Anfield

Something I've said before, but is the media trying to have its cake and eat it over Iraq or what ? On the one hand, we have industrial size quantities of hand wringing over the possibility that during the expected-for-several-months assault on Fallujah some civilians might be killed. True, the 'insurgents' may dress in civilian clothes and deliberately set up in civilian occupied areas, but all civilian casualties are the Coalition's fault. All this insanity would be bad enough, but check out the media's reaction to this sort of thing. Huge bomb attack, many civilian casualties, must be the fault of the Coalition for not providing security.

Hey, it's bad enough to hear the Jihadis referred to as insurgents or militants but when the self-same twenty-first century Robin Hoods blow up a bus load of civilians, you start to detect a double-standard at work here. The media claims that when US forces fire on a sniper and kill a bloke in the next room, why, it proves the US Army is just the same as the Waffen SS. Yet, no amount of exploded school buses will result in the media using the T-word to describe the 'insurgents'. Why no bleeding heart soliloquies from the media class on whether the insurgents are doing enough to avoid civilian casualties ? Then again, to accuse the media of merely spinning for the terrorists is to let them off to lightly.

Terrorists set up a fire position in a densely-populated area. US forces return fire and civilians are killed. The media gives the terrorists a propaganda coup by citing another example of US thuggery. Does that make it more or less likely that the terrorists will try again, that more civilians will be killed ? And does the fact that no one in the mainstream media will allow this to deter them not indicate that the media needs no lessons from the Pentagon in contempt for the lives of civilians ?

Go For The Throat

Few things in life are more certain than that when Liberals talk of uniting the country and healing division, it means they've just been whupped in an election. Hearing this garbage from US Liberals is be bad enough, but hearing it from Britain's L3 community is enough to make a dog throw.

True, saith the L3, Dubya won the popular vote, the electoral college, an outright majority and the highest number of votes ever, but one can hardly call that a mandate. Like, hello ? Nu Lab have never come anywhere near that kind of dominance, but if Smirking Sebastian had stood in Downing St on the second of May 97 and announced that now was the Year Zero, who would really have been surprised (although, in fairness, it must be said that in the case of Nu Lab they're far more likely to force people out of the country and into the cities) ?

Blair it was who promised to destroy the forces of Conservatism - can you imagine if Dubya pledged to smash Liberalism ? Heads would be popping all over Islington. Consider that the flagship policy for Nu Lab this term has not been NHS reform, a welfare shake-up or a Concorde-type project. Nope - it's been waging war on the countryside. Say what you like about Republicans, but you'd struggle to find an incident of the type of foaming at the mouth lunacy that infects Nu Lab MPs when they talk about county folk, all of which, incidentally, is usually accompanied by some pious dribblings about democracy. Find me a right-wing equivalent of PC ? Or a right-wing opposite number to the 'No Conservatives Need Apply' Beeb ?

Nope - if scoring a massive 25% of the vote is enough to justify Blair's Kulture Kampf against anywhere with cows in it, then the L3 can STFU about Bush doing what he was elected to do.

But I bet they don't.

It's Not About Freedom

Another side-effect of Dubya's win was a sighting of a favourite Liberal bogeyman, the alleged antipathy of the religious right in America to homosexuals, now supposedly reified in the form of opposition to gay 'marriage'. After all, say the L3, these naughty Christians want to deprive gay people of their right to marry.

We'll leave aside the question of how you can be deprived of a right you don't have in the first place, and 'move on' - as the L3 would no doubt say - to consider the question of what rights it is that gays are being deprived of. After all, a marriage is a complex thing so it's worth setting out exactly what is required. First of all, there's a need for a Priest. Fortunately, there are a fair number of Liberal (in every sense) Christian denominations which support gay 'marriage'. Also, you need to book somewhere for a reception. Again, there are many of these available. Flowers are always useful, and here many gays are particularly well served, quite possibly with the chance to get them at trade prices. Then there is the question of the honeymoon which…..

Wait, you mean that wasn't what you were talking about ? The Christians aren't actually firebombing shops which sell wedding rings to gay couples ? You mean what they want isn't the marriage per se, it's….

What it is that gay rights activists want is not the right to hold a wedding reception without crazed theocrats storming the place, no - it's the legal right to coerce the aforementioned Christians (and everyone else) to recognise them as married. You may think this is all perfectly reasonable - but it's not an argument based on freedom. On the contrary, the end result is to use the power of the state to force people to acknowledge gay couples as 'married' even if they themselves think the whole thing is ludicrous.

Again, you may think there are legitimate grievances, as far as issues such as taxation and the like go. This may be true, but that is not the argument these people have chosen to have. On the contrary, a movement designed to oppose iniquities in (eg) inheritance tax would have forged an alliance with carers while gay rights activists have very definitely chosen to not to address any individual anomalies - no, when they say gay marriage, they mean just that: the ability to coerce third parties into supporting their lifestyle. This debate is just further proof of what has been blindingly obvious since the 1990s. The gay rights movement is no longer concerned with protecting the rights of its members to follow their own lifestyle as it is with curtailing the rights of those whose lifestyles gays do not approve of.

RUV Justice

As a social conservative myself, I'd love to believe that the US election marks the first signs of the backlash against Liberalism. Of course, it's not just us who feels that way. Plenty of Liberals (and not a few Paleocons) want to ram home the message that this election result was down to bible-totting hillbillies. The Left loves this cover story as it allows them to indulge their elitism and to cast Conservatives as hicks but, more to the point, it distracts from the gaping hole at the heart of modern Liberalism.

One significant factor must surely have been the War and, more specifically, the many natural - even lifelong - Democrats who voted for Bush out of sheer disgust with their party's refusal to take the War seriously, call them Republican Until Victory.

There are a very large group of people who realise that the Democrats, and indeed Liberalism generally, have reacted to the world crisis by taking a hike to Venus. It's not that the Liberals advocate bad policies for winning the War, it's that they deny there even is one. Not even a world in flames can shake the essential narcissism of the Liberal.

There are plenty of right-wing objections to Dubya, for a start his 'quick, everyone, have some cash' spending policies, yet the right put aside it differences to stand solidly behind him. In contrast, the Left was unable to process the War as anything other than the continuation of its own obsessions by other means. The nadir of this attitude was when Senator Murray paid tribute to Bin Laden's role in building day care centres in Afghanistan - presumably to help all those women trying to manage career and family under the Taliban. That was an extreme case, but not qualitatively different from the rest of the Liberal approach to the War. True, Bin Laden may have been ranting about the humiliation of losing Al Andalus in the fifteenth century but what he was really talking about was Kyoto.

There can be no better proof of how unfit the Left is to deal with the War than the events of this last week. To listen to the media, Bush's victory meant Hollywood would be under siege by a torch-wielding mob of Christian fundamentalists, demanding they produce nothing more contentious than remakes of 'It's A Wonderful Life', and indeed a film maker was murdered by a religious fanatic even before the voting totals were in. If you spent your days fearing that failure to possess a bible would become a criminal offence - as all Liberals claimed to - then this should really have raised your hackles, except on closer inspection, it turns out the assailant was a……

Here was Liberalism in all its glory. Liberals constantly defame Christianity and its practitioners, all the while professing to be terrified by Christians yet when confronted with a cult whose adherents really do believe in killing the unbeliever, why, they think that's just a quirky bit of cultural heritage. This is the central psychosis of modern Liberalism, the belief that that which they wish was true, is true: Christians are crazed fanatics, while Moslems are noble savages, and don't none of you Nazi go pointing out any gaps in the Manhattan skyline.

This kind of post-modern insanity is not a new departure for Liberals, but the brutal reality of battle sure throws Liberal delusions into sharp relief. Clinton could claim that it depends what the meaning of 'is' is, but a murder in broad daylight demands better than these kind of word games. Indeed, there is a danger here for the Left. Given the sheer mendacity of the L3 approach to the war, how many RUVs will be lead to question how many other sacred cows turn out to be just so much hamburger ? Who knows ? But until the Left can deal with Bin Laden on his own terms, rather than as a mere stick to beat Bush with, they will all be - to coin a phrase - unfit for command.

Civilisation's Oldest Enemy Returns

The thing about living in a bubble is that there are no normal people around to point out even the most absurd contradictions in your position. Take the Beeb's efforts last Wednesday - on the same channel, on the same night, the Beeb ran both The Power of Nightmares and a supposed expose of the evils of the booze industry. So the people flying airliners into buildings aren't a threat, but the brewers are going to kill us all.

The program itself, The Booze Business: Consuming Spirits, was a masterpiece of the Beeb's po-faced, finger-wagging moralising. The program tracked a group of young ladies out on the town. Now take a wild shot in the dark which town it was filmed in ? Yep - Newcastle. Let no man say the Beeb is obsessed with stereotypes. The actual report was a perfect example of the 'gorillas in the mist' style Beeb reporters adopt every time they pass the Watford Gap, combined with the aforementioned sermonising, and no little humbuggery. The voice-over informed us that the ladies had spent over £100 on booze - no, actually they'd spent £20 on booze and £80 on tax. Hearing a whiny Liberal complain that people are spending too much on booze when it's people like him who have driven prices up in the first place is like hearing the guy who killed his parents lay claim to the sympathy of the court because he's an orphan.

Still, the Beeb was proving, once again, to be a perfect exemplar of the prejudices of lemon-sucking, Metropolitan Liberals. There's no two ways about it: foul stench, reports of unusual activity in the sewers...yep, the prohibitionists are back, and with them one of the defining battles of human civilisation.

Alcohol has been one of the common factors in the development of modern life. As far back as archaeologists go, they find evidence of hooch. Hell, man may even be a Johnny Come Lately here. Not only will several higher mammals make special efforts to drink booze when it's available, but even in the wild several primates will go out of their way to obtain those types of fruits which are prone to fermentation. What we do know for certain is that booze has been our loyal companion through the long march of human civilisation [if only there was a large group of people who didn't drink, we could see if their civilisation really was as rich and civilised as the prohibs say it must be] .

Booze has been with us from the dawn of history, and quite possibly so have the pinch-mouthed battalions of lemon-sucking freaks pushing prohibition. They say booze isn't healthy, yet what of those studies claiming that consuming certain forms of alcohol can improve health ? Shouldn't these freaks be out encouraging teetotallers to sink a few ? Maybe it isn't health per se that motivates them. They say people spend too much on booze, but they happily rake off the proceeds of punitive taxation. They claim booze is linked to violence amongst young people, so how come our schools are so violent ? As I recall, most comprehensives only serve lager, so maybe youth violence is down to the actual youths, rather than the sinister brewing collectives.

No, you want to know what really motivates these twisted human leeches ? Check out this 'ere poster. That's how they see it - drunks refusing to play their part in society, refusing to accept their responsibilities to be worker bees in the sociological hive. I doubt that one prohib in a thousand would question the fact that the poster is from the USSR, that the drunk is being criticised for not allowing himself to be a willing slave in the service of evil. To fellow drunks, this bloke isn't a waster, he's a hero, an almost Randian figure refusing to allow his mind to be enslaved by a Satanic regime. But don't expect the prohibs to see that. The prohib, almost by definition, is a collectivist - who else would rant & rave about someone else drinking ?

The prohib may have a laundry list of complaints against vitamin XXX, but it all boils down to one thing, a peevish, schoolmarmey rant that people aren't taking the right things seriously. This seems like a simple thing, yet it lies at the heart of the great divide between drunks and the paisty-faced creeps who wish to persecute us.

To the prohib, all life is a grim struggle, all individuality is the enemy. Think of a prohib and you think of some screechy, red-faced hag. Think of a drunk and you think of Dean Martin. The prohib trades on the supposed horrors awaiting the drunk, the drunk has no need of such fear mongering, he simply points out that life is good, and it can be even better with vodka.

Prohibs claim that drunks are irresponsible losers and deadbeats, that all the successful people are maniacal teetotallers: after all, how can a mind rotted by alcohol possibly match the spotless mind of the teetotaller ? I believe we tested this hypothesis some years ago, when we compared the performance of two Chief Executives, one sober and one drunk.

That's really what it's all about: who your role model is. Whether you think life is just great as is, or whether you want to ascend to the glory of your inner something and claim your eternal something else and then….. Who cares ? If you really can't stand booze then we, unlike YOU, are not forcing our lifestyle on anyone. Leave us alone, shut it and just sit in the corner and enjoy an evian or something.

Meanwhile, On The Other Side Of Town

While the Left is OK with homicidal film criticism by members of certain peace-loving religions, there are others which don't quite get the same pass. The ever-dhimmi BBC has posted a topic at (Don't) Have Your Say covering the whole Anglican women priests imbroligo, and - predictably - the L3 are in fine form:

How do we know that Jesus did not choose any women apostles? I cannot accept that God would have a preference in this matter. Anybody in the church who refuses to acknowledge this fact is in denial and should question their faith. Religion, in whatever form, should not be a male preserve. Male control should end or certain religions will die out and quite rightly so in my opinion.
R.C. Robjohn, UK

Yes, indeed. How do we know who Jesus chose ? If only there was some kind of biography of his life. Until then, actual Christians will just have to rely on moonbats like Robbo pronouncing on whether their faith is valid or not.

If churches want to discriminate against women, that's up to them. But they should not be allowed any funding of any kind from the state, and at the very least should have their automatic right to be a registered charity removed.
Alex M, London

Yes, indeed. Freedom of religion, except they'll be differential treatment for those religions which won't get with the PC program.

D'you ever get the feeling that the L3 don't really get the whole freedom of worship thing ?

Yet more prejudice from a church that claims to represent a loving God. See these organisations for what they are; power hungry bigots, not Christian organisations. If you are a Christian find your own way, do not believe the hate these people preach. They should be prosecuted, if any other employer was openly prejudiced like this they would be in court. This goes for all the other religious organisations that practise prejudice too, and that is nearly all of them.
Chris, UK

Yes, Christians, find your own way, unless it's a way Chris disapproves of, in which case you'll be prosecuted.

This is a pathetically narrow-minded notion in this day and age. Perhaps Jesus did choose only men as his apostles, but that was in an age when men still beat women in public for disobeying then. I thought society had moved on since then.
Martin, Reading, UK

Yeah, Jesus was an OK kind of guy, but honestly, the dude was sooooo two thousand years ago. It's time to move on and start worshipping someone more modern, like Bono.

Meanwhile, research continues into the question of whether the L3 have become such a bunch of narcistic drama queens that they've lost all perspective on the nature of true evil.

This is a huge step backwards for equality. How can we complain about other cultures treating women as second class when a significant sector of our own society is taking this awful step back to the dark ages.
Kelly, UK

The ROP stones young women to death, we refuse to dictate to churches who they can employ as priests. So, who are we to criticise them ?

Of course, the real question d'jour is whether it would be OK if the Church met them halfway, and agreed to shoot the women priests ?

Film Maker Shot. Police Rule Out Militant Buddhists

Well, this is going to be a classic. The dhimmis have been explaining for years how Al-Quaida and the like are merely responding to US imperialism, in contrast to the progressive policies practiced by the Continentals. Let's see how they spin the murder of a film director in Holland into a brave blow against AmeriKKKa.






Oh yes - the Beeb's Have Your Say team haven't got around to posting a topic on this yet. Quelle surprise!

Question D'Jour

When, and how, did this country become so feminised that we lost the will to tell these people where they can shove it ?

Who Is It ?

Sometimes, the simplest ideas are the best. See how hard it is to tell John Kerry from a couple of other prominent Liberal icons - only 7 ex 20 in my case.

Dhimms D'Jour

Hmmmm...the headline's 'Ethnic violence hits China region'. You have to read down to paragraph three to find out that there's a little more to it: 'The clashes were between members of China's majority Han community and the Muslim Hui ethnic group.'

The L3 have spent years trying to prove that opposition to the death cult is secretly ispired by racism, so why so coy the one time that claim can't be laughed out of court ? Of course, given that one of their central talking points is that that the war is actually a racist war waged by white, fundementalist Christians against innocent Jihadis, the news that the Middle Kingdom is also engaged with the death cult does kind of bring that into question.

Add communist China to Hindu India, the secular USA, Buddhist Thailand and Israel (which may well be Jewish) in the list of participants in "George W Bush's war". He must have more clout than you'd think.

TerAYZah In NRO

I told you she was comedy gold.

Fire Them All!

You think you can do this thing to me ? You think I'm just some bum ? Some stupid hick, gets his farm raided twice a week ? You're not dealing with some schmucks here, we don't care what some lawyers say, what twelve idiots say. We're not waiting for you people to give us the OK, we don't care what you cake-eating wheenies say. We don't support your system. Me and the boys, we do what we want. So, we shoot a few people, you got a problem with that ? 'Cause you got a problem with that means yout a problem with us means we got a problem with you. Like we had with Harry Stanley, you know what I'm saying ?

Blubber Burst

David Frum nails the Flint Freak:

Moore arrived late in his trademark jeans, shirt, working man’s jacket, and baseball cap. One of the BBC producers made a joke about the contrast between his outfit and my own Washington-standard-issue blue suit and red tie. I replied that I’d noticed that Moore was wearing a watch that cost at least fifteen times as much as every article of clothing on my body. I learned later that he’d arrived by private jet. Ave et salute, tribune of the plebs!

Well, He Was Once A Ceasar

Meet Kenneth Williams, Carry On stalwart and political philosopher.

The Bright Side

So, OK, Kerry could win and doom civilisation to a new dark age. OTOH, has there ever been a First Lady with as much comedy potential as the Empress Teressa ? Imagine four years of this sort of thing, this or this. Say what you like, at least we'll die laughing.

Hey - Those Suits Are Expensive!

Armani Trev is feeling a little insecure, and Andrew is there to make him feel much worse.

Sychronicity

Scott Burgess offers up this in rebuttal to the latest e-mailed rant from the Pollster:

Up until now, an information elite has been able to misrepresent and manufacture fact with virtual impunity - sometimes accidentally, sometimes as a deliberate means of pushing a chosen agenda.

For example, if a newspaper polemicist wanted to contend that "Scandinavian countries are best of all" at overcoming obesity, it was unlikely that many would notice and connect the fact that: "Norway has the highest percentage of overweight men in Europe, according to a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO)."

...

Those who did notice such "anomalies" had no easy means of communicating them to others interested in issues of journalistic integrity.Best of all, in this new media environment the once-wise maxim "never get in an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel" no longer applies - we all have barrels now. Ardent proponents of equality would no doubt applaud this development, were they not the ones whose superior status was now under threat.

All of which means that the Left will no longer be able to get by citing 'stuff that everyone knows'. When people who really do know have their own outlets, the Left's sacred cows start to look like hamburger.

Take for instance the evil of the British Empire. For the past forty years the Empire has been A Bad Thing, that's all you need to know. The L3 may be a bit murky about the specifics in all but a few cases, but our normally nuance-obsessed friends are sure about this: everything Britain did in Africa was evil, and only a fascist would ask for actual details. Well, as luck would have it, Laban Tall has just posted this. That's exactly the type of thing that the mainstream media would rather not consider - for all that they mock Dubya for being retarded enough to call mass murder evil, most journalists have a narrower worldview than any small-town American, albeit with a sign change.

Well, now we don't need to rely on the MSM to tell us the full story. They're no longer able to act as gatekeepers. That's the thing, in their nostalgia for the old ways, their frenzied denial of the realities of the new world, MSM stalwarts like the Pollster resemble nothing so much as expatriates in 1950s Africa, convinced that if only they keep dressing for dinner they can yet stave off the end.