First known joke about a mosque

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061010/od_nm/mosque_dc

NAIVASHA, Kenya (Reuters) - A couple caught having sex in a Kenyan mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan have been sentenced to 18 months jail for what the judge called an "abominable" affront to religion.

Peter Kimani and Jennifer Wairimu pleaded guilty to the charge of having sex in a place of worship after being caught on October 3 at the Abubakar mosque in Gilgil, about 60 miles north of Nairobi. Neither is a Muslim.

A worshipper heading for evening prayers found the couple having sex after investigating what the prosecution described as strange noises emanating from a dark corner of the mosque.

Kimani and Wairimu both pleaded for clemency at Monday's hearing, saying they were too drunk to know where they were. Kimani told the court he thought he was in a lodging house.

John King'ori, senior magistrate in nearby Naivasha, dismissed their plea.

"Having sex in a mosque is a most abominable thing to religion and only a custodial sentence can add justice to this," he said.

Priceless! Its ok to bonk in a mosque as long as you're completely smashed...

Its time for new men

Prominent on many newspapers today was the headline "Foreign criminals bribed £2500 to go home". Can you imagine Britain in 1906 paying criminals to leave the country? Just this year, our courts decided Britain did not have the power to deport nine Afghan men who hijacked a plane and flew it here, then claimed asylum. They still live here, on benefits, in council housing. We can't deport many of the jihadis who have been caught in the midst of conspiracies here, because they might be tortured in their home countries. When the vote on 90-day detention for terror suspects was voted on in the House of Commons, the Conservative party voted against it.

What is my point? Britain is ungovernable. It is hamstrung by international accords, agreements, supra-national laws, conventions and treaties. But what is worse, is that the men who supposedly rule here COOPERATE in making Britain needlessly vulnerable and open to attack. Thats why I noted the Conservatives dismal failure to support at least some common-sense legal reactions to our current state of affairs.

We need leaders, and a political party, who are rational and steely in their defense of the English people. Men who will not allow all that external international (especially EU) law we signed up for in decades past under very different circumstances to stop them from governing the country. They would need to revoke treaties that do not help our interests, unmake laws that stop us from living safely, and nullify international agreements that don't allow us to rule ourselves well. They would solve our real problems, and not worry about which international lawyers were peeved with them.

Do we currently have a party like that? No. I've checked, and there is no current serious candidate. So who will step forward?

So THATS what the medias job is...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6033421.stm

The court heard the news team was travelling independently of coalition forces to "interview civilians about their feelings in the first few days of the conflict" on 22 March 2003.

These men were not risking life and limb to give us factual reports about troop movements, levels of resistance, major engagements, new developments in combat techniques or equipment, enemy strengths and weaknesses or those kind of boring, mundane, 20th Century things. No no. They were there to interview civilians about their feelings. And a good job too. I'm sure they would have been rewarded with many useful quotes. I mean, nobody has ever asked people caught in the middle of a war if they are happy or sad before. What if people were actually ecstatic about being bombed, strafed, sniped and mortared? How would we ever find out, if it weren't for staunch newsmen like the guys from ITN?

I can't work up ANY sympathy for the bunny media, I'm sorry.

Beyond Dhimmitude

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5408470.stm

The headline for this article should read "British Policemen can now choose which assignments they will go on depending on whether it coincides with their politics". Absolutely disgusting. We have muslim servicemen who refuse to go to war in muslim countries because they would be fighting against Brothers, and now muslim policemen who won't guard the Israeli embassy because of the Lebanon self-defence action. In the same week that two muslim immigration judges were found to be employing and having sex with an illegal immigrant, is it possible that there is nothing we can trust these people to do?

The story the MSM won't tell

http://vernondent.blogspot.com/2006/09/youll-never-know-what-we-did.html

Ever wondered whether life in Iraq is improving?

Its time to close with the enemy

Drawing the Line?

It has been a parlor game of sorts to guess when—but even more so if—the Europeans (Britain included) will sigh, “Enough is enough,” and so get tough with both their own unassimilated angry Muslim minorities and the radical Islamic world at large. There will never be liberal values in the Middle East, no change, no future—as there would not have been in Hitler’s Germany, as there is not today in Cuba or North Korea—without the defeat of Islamic fascism, in its latest Islamic incarnation, as an ideological force.

The latter always proves more frightening than any caricature, the proverbial wild teenager who starts throwing things when told that his room is a bit messy. The riots in France, murders in Holland, cartoon fiasco in Denmark, bombings in London and Madrid, foiled plots in Germany and Spain, and now the Pope threats—will Europe insidiously bleed from a thousand nicks or take action and call fascists fascists?

And yet what would such spine-strengthening look like?

Closer, albeit still stealthy, ties with the U.S effort? More defense spending? Demands for assimilation or else? More moderate and right-center governments? An end to the EU politically-correct maternalism? An honest foreign policy with the Middle East? A new appreciation for Israel’s woes? Who knows?

But one thing is rather frightening: the political pendulum in Europe always swings much more widely and quickly than here. Unless these legitimate worries about radical Islam are addressed by EU politicians, a frustrated public—note the recent elections in Germany—will address them on their own in ways that are historically scary in their own right. When I go to Europe, I am always struck how at odds the average European’s talk is from what one reads in the newspaper or hears on the television. That degree of frustration and cynicism will only get worse unless there is some honest talk about the dangers Europe faces.

Victor Davis Hanson

I agree- but honest talk about the real dangers we face in Britain looks a distant prospect. The major political parties in this country are all bound up in a woolly Anglican-vicar rose-tinted dream where the vast majority of moderate, right-thinking muslims will at some future unspecified moment, turn on their fanatical co-religionists and scourge them from their communities on our behalf, and take their place alongside us as well-intentioned, patriotic and full-on members of British society. Highly unlikely and statistically the reverse of what is currently happening but perhaps... but since when do you make plans and run a country based on something highly improbable and statistically contradicted by each survey of the muslim population?

Before the population of Britain take matters into their own hands, in a way unlikely to meet the strictures of the Geneva convention, the British government must do something to change the dynamic of the current situation. Remove the islamists and their families from Britain, close the mosques that preach hatred and treason, execute the men caught trying to kill us, spy on as many muslims as it takes to eliminate the threat, take away the funds and facilities from any organisation (school, charity, association, campaigning body) that breeds islamists, and pursue the islamist ideology wherever it is found and destroy it.

We had to do that with Nazism and we should not shy away from doing it with islamism.

The worst ally in world history

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5394278.stm

Earlier this week Tony Blair assured Gen Musharraf a leaked paper condemning Pakistan's intelligence service did not reflect his government's view.

In the leaked report, a naval commander at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) claimed Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI, had indirectly helped the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

In the BBC interview Mr Musharraf rejected these claims and said ISI's support was vital. "You'll be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn't co-operate with you. That is all that I would like to say. Pakistan is the main ally. If we were not with you, you won't manage anything," he said. "Let that be clear. And if ISI is not with you, you will fail."

Lets take Mr Musharraf's main thesis and examine it. "If we were not with you, you won't manage anything." Is that really the case? At the moment, Pakistan is eating its cake and having it too. Pervaiz gets to lunch with all the European and US bigwigs, while his secret service do the heavy lifting for the Taleban and Al Qaeda. He has basically out-sourced the running of the North West Frontier province (a huge area) to the Taleban and Al Qaeda. The latter are currently murdering anybody in the region who don't like the fact that they now call the shots, including upper echelons of the Karachi governing apparatus. Pakistan sponsors terrorists who attack Indian forces in Kashmir and northern India; not to mention commuters in Mumbai. It is sanguine about hordes of Taleban launching attacks on Afghanistan from within its territory, a fact that Mohammed Karzai is currently becoming bilious about. Pakistani death-cult 'schools' prepare Britons for their 'missions' to murder other Britons. The ISI built and fund many of those schools.

Pakistan must be the worst ally you could have. My question to Mr Musharraf would be, where is the up-side to this for us? If I was him I'd be preparing a bunker with more comforts than that hole Saddam ended up in.

Nobody knows their history

The rules of engagement for jihad are flexible. According to Khadduri, anything is possible, from mercy to mass enslavement to mass killing, just like with Greeks and Romans. This is a fundamental difference between the holy war of islam and of Old Testament Judaism, which prescribed the killing of all males outside of Israel, and the killing of every living thing within Israel (Deuteronomy 20, 10-20). We usually are outraged at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099. Yet, the Crusaders acted in accordance with the ius bellum of the times, Muslim conquerors did the same all the time and everywhere: 698 they hit Carthage, in 838 Syracuse; the notorious vesir of the Cordoban Caliphate, Al Mansur, led 25 wars in 27 years against the Christian realms of northern Spain, enslaving, destroying, laying waste. They hit Zamora (981), Coimbra (987), Leon, Barcelona twice (985 and 1008), then Santiago de Compostela (997).

The worst destruction was wreaked by the jihadis on Byzantine Anatolia, which was then still full of cities; the massacre of Amorium (838) has remained a symbol for a long time; the urban culture of Anatolia never recovered from it.

The Seljuk Alp Arslan had entire Armenian cities massacred, the worst being the capital Ani in 1064. Bat Ye'or's evaluation therefore is more than justified: "Its lack of measure, its regularity and the systematic character of the destructions, which Islamic theologians had decreed to be law, make the difference between jihad and other wars of conquest".Certainly, mass enslavement remained the favourite aim of the wars. That was the way in which, as early as the eight century, the biggest slave-holder society developed that world history has ever known; it demanded a permanent influx of new slaves, transformed the African continent into the biggest supplier of slaves, a destiny which Europe narrowly avoided.

Professor Egon Flaig (quoted from Michelle Malkins blog).

I was struck today by a story on the front page of the BBC website, saying that more than 50% of Britons want British troops out of Afghanistan. I couldn't help wondering why. An incidental comment on a news bullitin today about that war went along the lines of "... and the Afghan government controls very little of the country." At what precise point in history did an Afghan government control more than 'very little' of Afghanistan, pray tell? Nobody knows their Afghan history.

The information in the quote from Egon Flaig about the Islamic way of war brought to mind floods of comments, vox pops, articles in the newspapers and conversations I have had with people about the nature of islam and the threat (or not) it poses to the rest of the world. Unsurprisingly (as humans seem designed to argue this way) prior behaviour often gets dragged into the mix. But the history reported by both muslims and non-muslims never seems to get much further than a few 'highlights'.

1. The crusades. These prove that the evil Christians are always the aggressor, and that the muslims are the victims

2. Muslim scientific and mathematical brilliance

3. The wonderful treatment of non-muslims in muslim societies historically

4. The great imposition of Israel onto the Arab (read muslim) world by the west.

And thats about it. The conquering by force of the north African and central mediterraenian Vandal and Goth states by muslim armies? Forget about it. The invasion of Spain? The attempted invasion of France? The conquering of the Asia by muslim mongols? Nah.

There are nested problems here. First, many people don't know the history. Second, many of those who do for political reasons won't interpret it in its most obvious ways. For instance, how many left-wing wacademics in the US tout the Arabs as the biggest slave owners and creators of all time? Not a lot. And third, muslims as a whole deny ANY facts that would intrude into their fixed world view, so you won't get much useful info out of them.

So where does that leave us? With a population who can't be educated by the media because not only don't the media know themselves, they want the muslim version of world history to be true, because they hate George W Bush more than Osama Bin Laden. Why don't British people want to extend the civilised world to encompass Afghanistan? Why don't the British people want our superb soldiers to act as guarantors for an Afghan government who DO control their own borders? Why don't British people feel that without the 32,000 Nato contingent in Afghanistan, a horrible domino effect would occur emanating from the new Talibanistan on the North West Frontier that would destabilise Russia, China and India? Why don't they recognise the amazing prospect that young Afghan girls and boys may actually go to school for pretty much the first time in Afghan history because our squaddies are killing the men who want to burn down the schools and get the girls back in the house where they can become ignorant baby-machines? Why don't the British people see that the Taliban ARE Al-Qaeda ARE the Mujahadeen ARE Hamas ARE Hezbollah to each other? Names are different, goals are the same.

How have British people NOT got those facts sorted out? By themselves, or with the help of the BBC, the Broken Broadcasting Corpse?

If you are going to give people the mandate, you must also demand that they consider the world their choices affect. With power comes responsibility. People should know their damn history.

Victor Davis Hanson goes to the nub

"Herein lies the greatest, most dangerous delusion we have been indulging for years now: everything our enemy does is merely a reaction to what we do. The enemy has no motives of his own, no goods or ends he is pursuing that may be very different from ours. He may think he does, and set those goods and ends out with clarity and force, and link them to the traditions of his faith, and be seconded in his opinion by millions of his co-religionists and the theologians of his faith, but they are all deluded. It’s not about Islam and Allah, it’s about Israel, oil, voting, cartoons, unemployment, American television, globalization, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the occupation of Iraq–– any and every material or psychological cause other than the one spiritual cause the enemy keeps telling us over and over guides and justifies his actions and has guided and justified the wars of Islam for fourteen centuries.

This indeed is an “appalling” misunderstanding of the enemy. As long as we indulge this reduction of the jihadist to our own assumptions; as long as we show by our actions that we are not really sure that the ends we pursue are just and right, right enough to do things at times we’d rather not; as long as we cling to “dangerous delusions” about human nature and the primacy of the material over the spiritual, we will continue to lose the war. For our enemy has none of our hesitation, none of our doubt, none of our fear of the world’s disapproval. He knows why he kills and dies. What will it take to teach us what we should kill and die for?"

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton091706.html

I often read things which make me envy the writers skill, but no one as often as Victor Davis Hanson. This article is a superb summation of what most people, especially the socialist and Guardian-reading mass of the population, don't get about this war. They can't think outside the box, to borrow a ghastly phrase from the marketing world. Its much easier for the Israelis, the Serbs and the Georgians to get a direct grip on this current world situation than it is for people in the US and Britain. For the latter, this stuff was all dusty history and a few crazed rag-heads in Iran until Sep. 11, 2001. Islam was off the map, the failed religion of people who just didn't matter. Now it does matter because they have declared war by any and all means, chemical, biological or nuclear, on non-believers. And people are going to have to get over their deeply and lovingly held belief that these people aren't really serious. They can't be THAT agitated over religion, surely? But they are folks, and they are willing to lop off heads, machinegun schoolgirls and blow up airliners full of happy holidaymakers until we collectively cry uncle.

Who you gonna believe?

On Sunday, Nato said they had driven Taleban militants out of Panjwayi district, after a two-week offensive codenamed Operation Medusa. Nato said at least 400 Taleban fighters had been killed in the operation, the biggest offensive since Nato took over southern Afghanistan from US-led forces at the end of July.

The deaths cannot be independently verified.

The BBC are SO scrupulous about verification. Wowsa. They never ever just take peoples say-so and report is as fact.

"Don't worry, I'm just parking!" shouts the driver. He is Kassem Shaalan. He knows what it is like to be hit by a rocket. On the evening of 23 July, he and two other medics answered a call to rendezvous with an ambulance from Tibnin, in the hills to the east, to relay three civilian patients down to Tyre. Both ambulances were struck precisely by separate rockets as they were stopped at the roadside near Qana for the transfer. It was 2230 at night. There was nothing else on the road. They were clearly marked, and lit up with flashing blue lights and illuminated Red Cross flags. Kassem, his two colleagues, the three medics in the other ambulance, and the three Lebanese patients, were all injured. One of the patients, 38-year-old Ahmad Fawwaz, lost his leg in the ambulance. His mother Jamileh, 58, and son Ahmad, 8, were both seriously injured.

And right there at the end, as you can see, it says, in huge block capitals, 'The injuries and rocket explosions cannot be independently verified.'

Some way cool gassing from our dude in France

"I don't believe in a solution without dialogue," Mr Chirac told Europe-1 radio, urging countries to remove the threat of sanctions against Iran.
"We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda for negotiations then start negotiations," Mr Chirac said. "Then, during these negotiations I suggest that the six renounce seizing the UN Security Council and Iran renounces uranium enrichment."

He was wearing a natty Nehru-suit, some beaded sandals, majorly cool sunglasses and had a spliff hanging from the corner of his mouth.

His last words to the star-struck radio-pixie were "Peace, Out". So, like, happenin'.

Back in the USSR

I never was in the USSR, but I do read. And I used to read many magazine and newspaper articles about the comical gymnastics that the Soviet newspapers and radio did to make sure they kept in with the Party. After all, twenty years in a gulag does nothing for your good looks. So the Soviet newspapers were not worth reading- they were some of the least read of any polity anywhere. What wasn't cringing toadying to party apparatchiks was probably lies. And the rest of the pages were information about where to go for some good-time commie fun- like the workers festival of heroic basket-weavers or some such.

It really takes some going to reach those depths. But try this on for size:

"Pope Sorry for Offending Muslims" Headline of the top story on the BBC news website.

Trouble is, he didn't say that. At all. That is the BBC speaking. Not the Pope. What the Pope ACTUALLY said was this:

"At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims."

Thats what he said. He is sorry FOR THE REACTIONS.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect."

Those are the words of an intelligent and thoughtful man NOT IN THE LEAST CONCERNED by the grotesque, over-wrought misrepresentation of his words by virtually all the worlds muslims. He wants to engage them in a frank and sincere dialogue. Good luck with that.

The title of this blog is my despairing shot at the hopeless dhimmies (muslim bitches) who occupy a great swathe of modern Britain. The BBC is now the apologist and re-interpreter of world events on behalf of the muslims. Its relationship with them is similar to those hopeless skanky women who marry serial killers and death row inmates who never see any evil in them, are blind to any intimation of their true characters, and willfully blind to the evidence of the guys terrible crimes. Why they want to do it I leave up to the psychopathologists- but the evidence that they do it is there plain as day every day.

A modest proposal

Being of an orderly nature, I think we should get the whole "muslims enraged, insulted and riotous" thing organised. I suggest one month a year set aside for muslims to rant, scream abuse, burn things down and file lawsuits, during which time the rest of us could all mock mohammed, call muslims pigs and apes (whats good for the goose...), point out obvious truths about the so-called religion of peace and generally get things off our chests. That way we wouldn't have to have these episodes of faux-outrage and staged flag-burnings by men in white sheets and little beady caps every couple of weeks; just during the seasonal outrage-fest.

Either that, or muslims could grow up and get used to being mocked and derided. Like the rest of us have.

Middle eastern leaders 'Tell Truth' shock

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5344334.stm

Kofi Annan has graduated 'Summa Cum Laude' from the university of the bleeding obvious. After doing a straw poll of middle Eastern leaders, he discovered that most deem the Iraq war to have been a disaster. For once, we can all agree. Specifically for middle Eastern leaders, the Iraq war is and will be the biggest disaster to befall them in the short history of ME nation-states. Up till now, the exigencies of the cold war, and then the mypia and inertia of both the US and Europe allowed the most disgusting and anti-huminatiarian regimes to exist in the ME without challenge.

But with the sweeping away of the Talibans suffocating and poisonous cabal and then Saddams grotesque and murderous thugocracy, that changed suddenly; from Damascus to Riyadh, Cairo to Tehran, the unelected and corrupt men in charge started to sweat and thrum nervously on their thrones. Things were afoot. New winds started to blow through. First, Muammar Ghaddaffi, the worlds most hilarious dictator, did a well-publicised switcheroo and gave up all his WMD programs. Then the Syrian twit Assad pulled his troops out of Lebanon, and even intercepted a few jihadis on their way to a quick death in Iraq. Most of the rest decided they were US allies at least for now. Only the Iranians diverged from the path of reason and realpolitick.

They did what can only be explained as whistling through the graveyard. Instead of looking over the border at the 135,000 seasoned US troops and making the obvious judgement that perhaps now was not the best time to tweak the tail of the great Satan, it has twisted and tweaked like there is no tomorrow. First, they attempted (and are still attempting) to break up the Iraqi state by sponsoring Shia death squads. Second, they used their proxies in Lebanon to start a war with Israel. And third, they are going hell-bent for leather to develop nuclear weapons.

I think we all know in our heart of hearts how this will play out. The US is never going to let an Iranian state ruled by psychotic, irrational hate-mongers go nuclear, right next door to two delicate new democracys. In Iraq a third of the population have religious affiliations with Iran. In Afghanistan, no nation-state has ever really existed, not at any point in history. One is currently being created, but the time-scale is at the very least decades. A nuclear Iran would change the regional balance beyond recognition instantly. The stakes in any confrontation would immediately be off the scale. So I predict Iran will have a nuclear program for about another month, maybe two.

The middle-term problem is Pakistan. Having now given the North West Frontier province to Al-Qaeda, Musharraf looks much less like a US/British ally. And he has real nukes, right now. The wafer-thin margin of influence that the US/UK can exert in Pakistan would disappear in a trice were Mr Musharraf to meet a bloody end, which he probably expects at any moment (and so should we). So really, its a two-fer as Americans call it. Pakistan cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons if its going to allow Al-Qaeda to create a state-within-a-state in the NWF province. It probably doesn't have many anyway, and a surgical take-out of those must have been contingency-planned for many decades at the Pentagon.

So my prediction is that within two years, the world will have one less nuclear program, and one less nuclear state. And quite possibly two or three revolutions. Watch this space.

Very impressive first person account from WTC

http://www.mpwilson.com/uccu/archives/000803.html

For those of you who don't do the English thing

By their fruits ye shall know them

A couple of weeks after 9/11, the professor [Edward Said] deplored the tendency of commentators to separate cultures into what he called "sealed-off entities," when in reality Western civilization and the Muslim world are so "intertwined" that it was impossible to "draw the line" between them. National Review's Rich Lowry was unimpressed. "The line seems pretty clear," he said. "Developing mass commercial aviation and soaring skyscrapers was the West's idea; slashing the throats of stewardesses and flying the planes into the skyscrapers was radical Islam's idea."

Thank you Mark Steyn. That is all I have to say on this very sad anniversary. Some of Britains finest minds were in those towers.

How can you argue with these people?

I heard recently that the 9/11 attacks were retaliation by Al-Qaeda for Nato's war against Muslims in Bosnia. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. How can you argue with such ignorance and stupidity? Where can you begin to challenge the lack of discrimination, the willful disregard for motive and intent, the ability to mutate events into their antithesis?

Over and over again, I read in the BBC propaganda organ that I am the problem- I'm ignorant of islam, ignorant of how a picture of Mohammed is the worst of all crimes, ignorant of the day-to-day life of pakistani goatherds currently residing in Britain. That may be true, although I'm sure I know more about their way of life than they do about mine. But when you listen to the paranoic and biased islamists and their cheerleaders in Britain waffling on about the Zionist conspiracy, the CIA 9/11 conspiracy, the Koran-flushing Gitmo outrage, the Abu-Ghraib torture conspiracy and finally the Nato-war-on-Bosnian muslims conspiracy, you enter a lobotamised world.

I'm tired of the willful perversity of the media in calling us ignorant, while at the same time 'bigging' the muslims and trying to persuade us that all the knowledge and beauty in the world can somehow be traced back to the muslim world. Our knowledge, education, tolerance and breadth of experience is constantly belittled and underrated, while their pig-ignorance, intolerance and bad faith are elided.

The result is very large numbers of muslims inhabit a world-view where everybody hates the muslims and the only response is mass-murder, beheading, disgusting torture and a crazed attempt to take over the world; and nobody challenges it because we're so darned tolerant and understanding.

We need to get less tolerant and understanding of things that directly threaten our way of life, and the ammassed civilisation of many thousands of years.

Playing by the rules

Societies that are highly homogenous ethnically and culturally gain a benefit of tranquillity and orderliness, because behaviour and the societal correction of anti-social behaviour are consistent across the board. Britain is now bearing a heavy burden of lawlessness and violent behaviour which is a direct result of a heterogenous culture. And its not just the most extreme behaviour which is a problem; recent immigrants are deeply ignorant of English mores and folkways, and that means our roads are chaotic and dangerous, our buses are chaotic and dangerous, our inner-city schools are chaotic and dangerous, and intra-communal relations are often chaotic and dangerous.

Many people warned about these things 50 years ago when the first mass-immigration was foisted on a highly un-willing British population, and were accused of racism, bigotry and xenophobia. Now that the evidence is there for all to see, if you point it out you are STILL accused of racism, bigotry etc. Especially for city-dwellers, and the poorest people in Britain, the trashing of their communities and way of life have been wholesale and catastrophic. Many English people, myself included, are now a minority in their own land, little islands of Englishness in a maelstrom of foreigners.

The English thegns who fought against William the Bastard at Hastings used as their battlecry "Out! Out! Out!". That atavistic urge is starting to awaken in the English. All you politicians, in your picturesque little home counties bastions, do you hear the faint but growing sound of revolt? Then you had better start listening...

Todays childrens quiz

Hello children!

Can you put these events into their chronological order?

- The invasion of Iraq

- The invasion of Afghanistan

- The second and successful attack on the World Trade Center towers

- The first and unsuccessful attack on the World Trade Center towers

- NATO come to the rescue of Bosnia's muslim population

Remember children, if you can do this, you are smarter than ALL the muslims in Britain!

(Health warning: facts are extremely dangerous to the muslim world view)

The easiest money you can make

Whats the easiest money you can make? Selling missiles to Iran? Selling nuclear technology to North Korea? Being a Palestinian? No way.

The easiest money on earth is:

"Death of a President, on More4, uses actors and computer effects to portray the president being shot dead during an anti-war rally in Chicago in 2007."

Guess which President they mean, and you win todays putty medal.

As the program maker says "It's a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic. I'm sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is."

Mmmmm. Perhaps. A more reasonable way of characterising it would be something like "...another hack piece of lefty bullshit fantasising about the murder of George Bush." And if you don't think that this is a common fantasy for those in the US and around the world whose pet peeve is the continued existence of Mr Bush, do a Google on George W Bush and assassinate.

The Democrats in the US in particular have spectacularly descended from their historical position as a moderately left-of-centre party with wholly American instincts into a festering melange of hate-groups, eco-frenzies, special interest lobbies, single race promotion groups and America-haters. As they become more extreme and unhinged, fewer and fewer ordinary Americans are willing to associate themselves with it. Joe Lieberman has already payed the price of having a rational view, and Hilary Clinton I predict will too. Democrat policy can now be summarized as:

We hate George W Bush
Pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Apologize to the world and grovel in self-abasement
We hate George W Bush
Stop all meaningful economic activity (due to warming of earth)
We hate George W Bush
Give zillions of dollars to third-world dictators as recompense for our oppression
By the way, did we mention we hate George W Bush? Just checking.

Anyway, returning to the original point of this post, making TV programs that feed into the Bush-hatred feeding frenzy is just about the closest thing right now to a guarunteed banker. "Producers of the film, which is directed by Gabriel Range, hope to sell the broadcast rights to the US."

I'm just surprised that there aren't five or six more of these murder-fantasies flying around, given that as soon as you get a distribution deal for the US, you can retire to the Bahamas with you hefty pile of loot, braying all the while about the fascist policies of Mr Bushitlerhaliburton. The sangria tastes so much better when its got that dash of self-righteousness.


All quotes taken from this BBC website article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5302598.stm?ls

Hugo Chavez- leader of the worlds morons

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060825/wl_mideast_afp/chinamideast
conflict_060825100753

Ever since childhood, I have had a secret loathing of the naivety and gullibility of a lot of latin Americans and South Americans. It seems that with no effort, any snake-oil salesman, corrupt politician on the make, or dim-witted rabble-rouser can almost instantaneously summon up a great crowd in Brasil, Venezuela or Argentina and lead them off on some stupid escapade. Hugo Chavez is a recent example, but the 20th century was littered with them.

What marks these buffoons out is the Ghaddaffi-like estrangement from the world of facts. Very often their public statements read like the more esoteric gibberings from the hippy era of acid-produced incoherence, un-sullied by knowledge or judgement. The fact that they often become President of a whole nation calls into question many things, but most importantly the sanity and judgement of the voters. Chavez may be a favela boy made good, but there must be men of vastly greater wit, learning and judgement still in the favela who would benefit Venezuela by their occupation of high office. The big question is, will Venezuelans ever choose one?

The way of the world

Happened to catch Billy Connolly last night for a second. Although diminished as a comedic force, he is still better than most others. This line really caught my attention-

"Scientists have declared that in our first few milliseconds on encountering something our brains go through a little hard-wired routine. It goes

Can I eat it?
Can it eat me?
Can I fuck it?

Within about 3 milliseconds we've already done that analysis and behave accordingly."

So true. Especially the fact that it starts out with eating, which I consider in the great balance of things provides most people with more pleasure over a lifetime than sex. And unless you are Michael Stipe, more variety.

Racist umpire 'expects us to follow rules'

The Pakistani nation rose up with one voice today to declare the umpire in the Oval test match a racist. "How dare he expect us to obey rules like not tampering with the ball? We are Pakistani's and therefore don't have to obey your WHITE MAN rules. What is this, the 19th century? Next you'll be saying we have to have non-corrupt courts, an economy that doesn't just involve opium and donkeys, and a foreign policy that doesn't just revolve around jihad for all. Disgusting! Take your colour bar with you on the way out!"

All I can say is, cricket would be the better without 'em.

Israels failure and what must happen next

Israel cannot afford to lose wars. The most recent war with Syria/Iran/Hesbollah was not a fiasco, it just wasn't a victory. Hesbollah had far too much time to prepare their defenses, had the latest weaponry thanks to the Russians, and were attacked in the wrong way. Air bombardment against Hesbollah failed for the same reason air bombardment failed in Vietnam- deeply dug defenses and a big area of operations meant that the IAF were really only going after a few guys at a time, with relatively small impact munitions. Hesbollah were well spread out and were only ever damaged locally. The strategy was to bomb lots of Hesb targets and hope that their infrastructure was damaged severely, then send columns of ground forces in to mop up. Both parts of the strategy failed.

A strategy that would have worked would have been to create an Isreali cordon right across Lebanon, on the Litani river, quite narrow and easily defensible cutting off Southern Lebanon completely and isolating Hesb in the south. Then slowly pick off Hesb south of the Litani as they became hungrier, short of ammo and more desparate. No big infantry pushes that would generate large-scale casualties, and no large areas of territory to control while being IED'd and sniped. And no air war- the bombing was spectacular so the western media found it very easy to damn Israel, yet ineffective.

Cutting Hesb in half would have lots of positive results. The southern area would be gradually reduced as the local population would have to rely on the Israelis for supplies through the cordon. These could be manipulated to make sure that Hesb ground to a halt. Constant patrolling by drone would make sure that Hesb had to pretty much keep their heads down- very much not brave and victorious. Slow strangulation of Hesb in the south would have been much more do-able, and clever, and without the propaganda pictures for the Jew-haters at the AFP. Somebody want to suggest this to the Israeli army command? Its not too late yet...

Cricket the revealer of character

Last summer at about this time, us cricket fans were enjoying the most spectacular and tense test series in my lifetime, between two sides who just didn't know when to quit. Australia were immense, both in their commitment to winning and their grace in defeat. And now for the contrast- could there have been a more pathetic end to a pretty dull series of cricket matches than the cheating that brought the yesterdays match at the Oval to a premature end?

I firmly believe that sport reveals the character of individuals and of teams, indeed of nations. England showed spirit, verve, tenacity and being 'up' for the game- Pakistan showed pride, spinelessness, disorganisation and at the final moment, dishonesty. I for one would be perfectly happy not to have to watch a test series involving them ever again. After the disgusting tanking of the world cup final, and numerous other undignified and corrupt episodes of the last few years, Pakistan ought to be stripped of test status. Given that murderous Pakistanis made the last English tour of that country extremely tense and unpleasant, it could well be very good timing.

At last! British Muslims see the light

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4786159.stm

"Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.

It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.

Such a move would make us all safer."

So the muslims in Britain (or at least the guys who wrote this letter) have finally seen the light! They want us to change our foreign policy to commit ourselves to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas, whose attacks are always and intentionally against civilians (unless Iran asks them to assasinate a few soldiers to spark a distraction from their nuclear bomb program). Fantastic! Now we all agree that the 'debacle of Iraq' caused by Iranian civil-war promotion and Saudi jihad promotion, in which many thousands of innocent muslims have been murdered by other muslims is the scene of disgusting war-crimes. All those muslims in Iran and Saudi Arabia who are responsible should be tried and executed by the International Court of Human rights. Now we are ROCKING!

A meeting of minds

Mohammed at http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ in his latest post about the Arab media, develops at least two themes that I am very focused on.

First, the lying that cloaks the Arab world like a wraith, guarunteeing failure and behaviour that is completely antithetical to the Arabs own goals.

Second, the blindness of the haters in the Middle East, and their faithful chorus in Europe to any cruelty or bestial behaviour that is inconvenient, or doesn't fit into the dramatic narrative they have written for themselves.

I believe that a worldwide consensus is building up, which endeavors to incorporate all the facts into a coherent picture of what is really going on in the world, especially its more complex and confusing corners. Those of us who don't hate for the sake of hating, and who will peace with justice and without tyranny must bind together to take the world away from the fanatics and the destroyers of life.

Help! I'm less than half sentient

Watching the 10 pm BBC news tonight, there just wasn't any time for factual reporting amongst the editorialising and pro-Hesbollah propaganda. Nick Robinson obviously loves them so much he got a bit carried away. He said, and I quote verbatim "...only the less than half-sentient would not want an immediate ceasefire" (in Lebanon). I don't want a ceasefire, ergo I am less than half sentient. I was always told by my mum that as soon as you start insulting those with opposing opinions you've lost the argument.
The argument for no ceasefire is perfectly valid and logical. Israel have fought Hesbollah intermittently for the last 24 years. They are now determined to not spend 24 more years doing so, and are going about the indubitably difficult task of destroying Hesbollah root and branch. Why would they stop in the middle of doing that so poncy western diplomats can have a group hug? I find the arguments FOR a ceasefire weak and mainly misguided. The first and most important effect of a ceasefire would be a precious window of opportunity for Hesbollah to re-arm, get wounds treated and re-organise. Why would Israel give them that gift?
But what do I know, I'm less than half-sentient.

Oh THAT freedom of expression

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1224

'Fifty-seven Muslim governments are pressing to include a “ban on the mocking of religions” in a new U.N. human rights body by pushing a resolution under the agenda item “Racism” condemning what they called the “Defamation of Islam.” In a clear reference to the Muhammad cartoons controversy, the proposal stated that “defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression.”'

And there was me thinking that freedom of expression meant a freedom to express things I want to express...

A letter in Die Tagesspiegel, Berlin newspaper

I lived until 2002 in a small southern village near Mardshajund that is inhabited by a majority of Shias like me. After Israel left Lebanon, it did not take long for Hezbollah to have its say in other towns. Received as successful resistance fighters and armed to the teeth, they stored rockets in bunkers in our town as well. The social work of the Party of God consisted in building a school and a residence over these bunkers! A local sheikh explained to me laughing that the Jews would lose in any event because the rockets would either be fired at them or if they attacked the rockets depots, they would be condemned by world opinion on account of the dead civilians. These people do not care about the Lebanese population, they use them as shields, and, once dead, as propaganda. As long as they continue existing there, there will be no tranquility and peace.

Dr. Mounir Herzallah
Berlin-Wedding

The left and close elections

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5229762.stm

Funny isn't it? Every time a left-wing party loses a close vote, they say it was rigged. And call everybody out in the street. Which, last time I checked is NOT called democracy. Oh well.

Our way and the Roman way

Just read "Death by Moral Vanity" at Posse Incitatus (http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/) Very thought provoking. As he says, many commentators have struggled to analyze our current attitude to self-preservation. Is the West too 'civilized' to win wars?
Perhaps because of his blog name, I immediately thought about the Romans, and their attitude to themselves and to the Res Publica. It took the Romans three wars and 118 years to beat Carthage. They lost many battles, whole fleets of ships, Rome itself was at one point under imminent threat- in fact, it took every resource at the disposal of Rome to finally master their most potent rival in the west. But they did.
It is not even five years since Islam declared war on everybody outside its protective umbrella, and already many Europeans and Americans are either bored, relaxed about things or have forgotten there's a war on completely. Could there be a starker contrast?
Every Roman soldier, every Roman military building and every Roman unit standard had SPQR emblazoned on them. Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus= The Senate and the people of Rome. Thats who they were fighting for- and the success of Rome's legions owed in no small part to the huge pride the legionaries had in their form of government, and their status as Roman citizens. They felt superior to those they fought, in civilisation, in discipline and in reputation. And they were right- their civilisation gave ours many of its foundations. Those men did not doubt the evidence of their own eyes- their technology was superior, their organisation was superior, and the men who led them were from ancient illustrious families who vied not only with their generational rivals for glory, but also the great men of previous generations. In every respect they were expected to perform their duties excellently for the benefit of their families honour, and for the benefit of the Roman republic.
How many europeans care about their honour, or their families honour? How many of them are proud of their political system (if they understand what it is)? How many of them are proud of their citizenship?
In America these things still exist, thank God. But as cynicism and modish psuedo-sophistication take their toll on these core conceptions, for how much longer will they be a majority fact?
In Britain, family honour, pride in the polity and citizenship are almost dead. They are constantly trashed by the media, and pop stars and talk show hosts line up to mock and deride them. The Queen, our first citizen, is constantly insulted. Standing up for England is considered pathetically old-fashioned and uncool.
Not only are we incapable of fighting the 118-year war, the first stout blow to this body-politic should suffice to destroy it. We are weak, morally stunted, debauched and nihilistic. Virtually no-one goes to church. Virtually no-one stands for the National Anthem.
Unless someone starts to re-create England very very soon, there will be no point trying.

If we talked like the Muslims

We constantly elide from our consciousnesses the lies, insults and gratuitous self-praise of the Muslims. We do this because its politically convenient and because we don't want to cause 'offense' by pointing out that a lie is a lie, an insult is an insult, and self-congratulation is vain and rude.

But lets try a little mind game. Lets translate the 'logic' and 'political opinion' of the muslims into our own terms.

"We must destroy Turkey and throw the Turks into the sea, because they are occupying Christian lands. For hundreds of years, Turkey was part of Christendom, and any lands that are ever Christian must remain so. We will kill anybody we need to kill to make that reality. Anywhere in the world. At any time."

"There is a worldwide muslim conspiracy, supported by eastern governments and their powerful media organisations. The reason Christians don't have good jobs in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Iran is because of the powerful but shadowy muslim influence that pervades those societies. The immoral and bestial influence of islam must be fought and destroyed, for the good of the world. God wills it."

"The muslim world is so corrupt, killing them is actually doing the world good. We should blow up their public buildings, murder their politicians and randomly attack their public transport, and behead any muslims who are unfortunate enough to fall into our hands. Oh, and by the way, we are the innocent party in all this! We are only doing this because of Christianaphobia, the international uber-hatred of our religion whipped up by the hated muslims."

"They hate us because we have the true religion. The muslims are people of the beard (thats our pet name for them). They are jealous because we have the one true prophet, Jesus. People of the beard are ok for murdering if you need to. Oh yes, and lying to them is just fine if it promotes the ends of Christianity. We call it Tacky. It may be tacky, but its ok really. All muslims are pigs and dogs. Not sure why, but it makes us Christians sound better. Once we have killed and mutilated enough muslims, the rest will probably want to become Christians to save themselves, which will be great for all concerned, especially God (pbuh)."

See? See how absolutely awful it is to think like these people? Where their moral superiority comes from I'm still struggling to work out.

The EU- a tutting superpower

On the right, we have the USA- international economic and military superpower. On the left, we have China, economic powerhouse. And stage centre, we have the EU, tutting superpower. The US may have the money and the weapons, but the EU has cornered the market in tutting, self-righteous posturing, and lecturing the world on how it should behave. The BBC, mouthpiece for British tutters, is full of advice for other countries. A letter to todays Times newspaper puts it perfectly 'Our societies must become exemplary in matters of harmony, morality, justice and decency'. Imagine a society modeled on the nerdlings of a normal wet-as-Wimbledon Church of England vicar, and you've pretty much got it.

Forget about the fact that '...morality, justice and decency' plus fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. Forget that in the last 15 years millions of perfectly moral, decent, innocent people in Africa have died bloodily at the hands of scabrous wretches. 'All they need is love, man'. No, that is just factually wrong. If you want to protect your harmonious, moral, just, decent society, build great big tanks and ships and missiles, because thats where the immoral, unjust, indecent people who want to take over your country will start. If Britain and America had not had the industrial output and eventually the best military technology 65 years ago, Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would currently rule the planet. And you may recall that harmony, morality, justice and decency got short shrift under national socialism.

It makes me so angry when Jesus's profound words 'By your fruits ye shall know them' are ignored; and replaced by the injunction 'By their words shall ye judge them'. The Arab world especially is ruled by the lie. Lies are told by everyone to everyone in a chaos of hyperbole, cant, misrepresentation, distortion and bile. And instead of looking at the resulting dreariness and awfulness of the societies created by all the lying, many westerners suck up the lies, ignore the outcomes and start repeating the lies themselves. That is just so terrible. We are strong, and we are good, and the evidence of both of those things is all around us. But those simple truths are disregarded by the febrile critics of the west as if they are nothing.

Only a few of our current crop of politicians seem to understand this, and none except Tony Blair have expounded it in public. We are teetering on the edge of a precipice.

She's a puffball rebel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5209714.stm

So Madonna is a total rebel and WAY OUT THERE because she mocks and blasphemes against Christianity. The paper tigers really respect that. Funny how she won't do a pastiche of muslim religious practise, or dress up like Mahommed and do a dirty song. Strange. Its almost like taking the piss out of Christians is... low risk; while mocking muslims might actually have some real-world consequences. The 'bravery' of pop musicians seems exactly like the 'bravery' of Hollywood directors- the bad guys are British or Christians, and never Arabs or muslims. Funny that.

How bout some Theo Van Gogh bravery people?

Stoking up the rhetoric UN stylee

'UN Appalled by Beirut Devastation'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5207478.stm

For those aficianados among us of UN terminology, we know that the word 'Appalled' is reserved only for the most extreme situations. But for the less genned up folks, I have provided here an easy guide to UN rhetoric.

Level 1
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought by black people: 'Slight concern', 'Could the warring parties please start discussing alternatives?', 'Rather unfortunate', 'we'll never send anybody to sort that out'

Level 2
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought by muslims against anybody else: 'Perhaps the warring parties might be better off using non-military means to solve their disputes', 'Its quite quite unfortunate', 'Please try not to kill any more Darfurians, Thais, Phillipinos, Kashmiris etc', 'peacekeeping troops? Why?'

Level 3
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought against muslims: 'Terrible injustice', 'making the Arab street angry', 'really very awful', 'we'll send peacekeepers as soon as we can persuade the US and Britain to send them'

Level 4
Wars that involve the US, Britain or Israel against non-muslims: 'neo-colonial warmongering', 'unilateralist world-domination attempts', 'utterly disgraceful','er, who wants to go be peacekeepers?'

Level 5 (the worst wars that can occur)
Wars that involve the US, Britain or Israel against muslims: 'Appalling', 'disproportionate', 'fueling the hatred that breeds terrorism', 'full blown colonialism', 'Bush more dangerous than Ahmedinajad', 'blood for oil', 'naked islamaphobia', 'Russia? China? Fancy some peacekeeping?'

Level 6 (ok, there are actually wars worse than level 5)
Wars that involve Israel against anybody: 'the Jews are the new Nazis', 'its definitely a holocaust against the Palis', 'they should be driven into the sea', 'totally disproportionate', 'must whip up a peacekeeping force in the next 20 minutes. You ALL want to help out? Wow!'

Yup, that pretty much covers it

"So after 9/11, the London bombings, the Madrid murders, the French riots, the Beslan atrocities, the killings in India, the Danish cartoon debacle, Theo Van Gogh, and the daily arrests of Islamic terrorists trying to blow up, behead, or shoot innocent people around the globe, the world is sick of the jihadist ilk. And for all the efforts of the BBC, Reuters, Western academics, and the horde of appeasers and apologists that usually bail these terrorist killers out when their rhetoric finally outruns their muscle, this time they can’t.

Instead, a disgusted world secretly wants these terrorists to get what they deserve. And who knows: This time they just might."

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072106.html

As usual, Victor Davis Hanson goes for the jugular. If the islamists want the whole world to hate them, and seek their destruction, they're well on their way. Its a bit like the well-known "Suicide by cop" routine played out unfortunately frequently in the US, only on a whole-culture scale. We are constantly told that there are 1.2 billion muslims; there will be a lot fewer than that soon if they continue to piss on everybody from Kamchatka to Kathmandu and from China to Chile. All over the globe, societies are identifying muslim fanatics and preparing to kill them. The ummah could be a lot smaller soon.

Simple solutions to bogus problems #57234

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006330304,00.html

So muslim prisoners don't like our prison food?

Bread and water are halal, I'm reliably informed.

Badum chish! That will be £50 please!

Really, please don't bother

There was an Islamic Fun Fest last weekend at Alexandra Palace in North London called Islam Expo. All the great and good of islam in Britain, plus lots of nut jobs from around the world came forth to trumpet the great news about the religion of peace. It was a combined PR blast, love-in, hate-fest and mutual back-slap.

Of course, what with Hezbollah triggering war with Israel from the north, and Hamas triggering war with Israel from the east and south, the PR stuff was a total washout. The thing about propaganda is it must at least be a reasonable facscimile of the truth. With islamists using Lebanon and Gaza as launching pads to attack Israel, how many people round the world still believe in the essentially peaceable nature of muslims? How many people still believe a world run by muslims would be a good deal for non-muslims? How many people want anything to do with the death-cult religion? How many religious people want to have anything to do with a religion that launched the video of the murderous scumbag who bombed Edgware Street station virtually on the anniversary of the bombing?

As propagandists down through the ages could tell you, one thing PR can't do is make black white. It can't change the essential nature of something. All it can do is soft-focus or de-emphasize elements that are particularly gratuitously awful. But muslims in Britain can't bring themselves to even do propaganda properly. They WANT us to know that they wouldn't report terrorist activity to the police; they WANT us know that they are prepared to keep bombing us until we stop our 'Crusades against the poor ickle muslims'.

Sadly, its taken many many people years of acts of savage brutality plus acres of newsprint and airtime with muslims telling us why acts of savage brutality are necessary to realise what the situation is. The situation is this: take on the islamic supremacists and defeat them, or prepare yourself for life under the English Taleban.

Playing with fire

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5177480.stm

The Crown Prosecution Service and human rights lawyers in this country are playing with fire. If they start prosecuting the men in the front lines of our war on islamist terrorists, they will damage morale; and if they start putting them in jail, don't expect the Police and MI5 to risk their lives on our behalf. Only a country with a deranged set of priorities would prosecute men for a mistake like this- there will be many mistakes in this war- it comes with the territory. Innocent lives are often lost in the struggle to win a war. Societies like ours try desperately not to cause innocent deaths, whereas our enemy have no such policy.

Jean Charles de Menezes death was highly regrettable, and a tragedy for his family. But he was an innocent casualty in a war that will have many more of those before we stamp out islamist fascism. And the stout-hearted men and women going into that fight need our utmost support and assistance as they get stuck into the enemy.

In no way do these intended prosecutions support or assist. The Government must intervene to prevent these prosecutions, or reap the awful consequences.

Its true- the Tories have changed

Dave Cameron wants this headline every day:

"The Tories have Changed!"

Were it to happen, it would actually be correct. They have gone from being a moribund party of ageing Margaret Thatcher groupies to... being the Liberal Democrats. How is that supposed to enthuse us with the desire to vote for the Tories? I hate the Liberal Democrats. I'm sure many of them are lovely people, well-intentioned, honest and law abiding. Its their policies that make me shudder in horror. They are a mish-mash of left-over tosh from the sixties and the original Liberal ideas from the nineteenth century. Sadly, the Lib Dems seem to always manage to pick the worst from both streams. Now for Dave Cameron to take on many of the Lib Dems key policies must be bewildering for both Tories and Lib Dems. But for conservatives like me it leaves no possible democratic choice.

At a time when genuine conservative thought is so useful to cut through the cant and blather being thrown at the electorate from every direction, there isn't any on the airwaves or in the broadsheet, and most pertinently, the soap box.

The killer question is, how long can Britain last without a conservative party?

Simplistic nonsense the BBC way

Not content to take on one huge, complex country at a time, the BBC news people are currently doing a comparative study of India AND China. When I say 'comparative study', I mean that in the television sense of the phrase. That means virtually no data except cherry-picked anecdotage from those two countries media, plus similarly scanty personal observations of BBC correspondents from those two countries.

The main thrust of the BBC's program is that China and India are the superpowers of the future, and that about Thursday week they will (hallelujah!) overtake the US as the premier power on the earth. The question that seems to exercise the BBC minds most is, which one will overtake the US first?

That seems mildly presumptuous. First of all, how on earth did teensy weensy Britain, with it piddling little population, become a superpower in the 18th and 19th centuries? Why has Nigeria, with 100m people never been able to exert influence beyond say, Mali? Perhaps (it is my humble suggestion) huge population is not an automatic guaruntee of economic success nor military dominance. India has had a huge population since virtually the end of the last ice age. And yet its economy was smaller than California's until recently.

Becoming a superpower is just not a straightforward thing. Many planks are necessary to support a great nations ambitions. At the top of the list is good governance: a constitution (whether written or not) which is flexible, effective and able to withstand pressure; a high level of public spirit at all levels of society; effective law enforcement; justice dispensed impartially; a strong conception of private property and the means to enforce it; a willingness in the populace to participate in military efforts, even when they are long and brutal.

Without good governance, a society with pure economic muscle quickly flies of the rails into social disorder, unrest, violence and class warfare. The Soviet Union is a good recent case. Virtually none of elements of good governance existed in the USSR and the millions of Russians and other nations who were expected to do all the heavy lifting gradually lost interest in sustaining the system which gave nothing back.

China is going through exactly the same process right now. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people (I heard the estimate of 300 million) have lost most or all that they had in the industrial transformation that has occured in their country. The older folk may just go off to a deserted place somewhere and die, but the younger ones will fight. Not just that, but many of those who have gained during the same period are at risk of losing their new-found property because there is no institution in China capable of defending their property rights. The friction caused by this will be tremendous. I make the prediction now that if China survives the environmental hell it has created for itself, it will only be a temporary reprieve. In the next 15 years there will be catastrophic social unrest in China, perhaps beyond a scale we can imagine.

India is much better of in respect of governance. It is a functioning democracy, and has a functioning court system capable of enforcing property rights. It also has public education and government programs to enable the poorest people. What it doesn't have is infrastructure to leverage the huge manpower theoretically available, and the general wealth of the Indian population is small. Rich economies have large numbers of rich people- that is the most reliable evidence of their success. At the moment, India has a tiny proportion of beneficiaries of the new industry. Will it grow? Only time will tell. So my prediction for India is much more positive- I predict that in 10 years India will have developed into a middling economic power in a completely sustainable way. I also predict that it will not want to develop huge military power. Its immediate neighbors are either huge (China) or much smaller (Pakistan, Bangladesh). China has no motivation to invade India. Pakistan has motivation, but will never have the means. Bangladesh has neither. So I predict India will become a regional power, stable and responsible and politically mature. That makes it much more likely to be an ally of the US rather than a competitor.

Its interesting that the last time I heard someone cheerleading China as the future replacement of the US as world hegemon, it was Robert Mugabe. BBC journalists and Robert Mugabe singing from the same hymn book. Interesting.

Its war

So Al-Jazeera have been saving up a propaganda video of two of the 7/7 bombers for the first anniversary of the bombings, so they can celebrate the brutal murder of 52 innocent civilians in style, and with maximum insult? Fine. Just wait for this years Ramadan my friends. I am personally going to start a campaign to insult the worlds worst religion during its so-called holy month. There will be lots of Mohammed cartoons, lots of anti-islam jokes, lots of doctored photo's of islamic idiots doing their islamic bollocks- all the fun of the circus. If its going to be war, you gotta have two sides, right?

Scotlands finest hour

'There has been a series of anti-English incidents in Scotland during the tournament in Germany, including attacks on a disabled man in Aberdeen and a seven-year-old boy in Edinburgh'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5128028.stm

I have only watched 'Braveheart' once. I did find it very humorous as a work of spiteful fiction, but it has at its core at least one truth. And that is the bitter bile at the heart of both Scottish and Welsh nationalism. Rather than being positive movements centred on pride-of-place and genuine traditions, both are essentially aimed at the English. Both define Scottishness and Welshness as romantic opposition to an oppressive England, whether real or mythical. They promote a victim mentality, and an air of grievance about centuries of percieved wrongs.

What is most interesting is that they come to the fore at a time when England and Englishness are at possibly their lowest ebb in many centuries. Weakness and lack of unity draw the vultures in. What needs to happen is the resurrection of a muscular Englishness, one that is not constantly hobbled by political correctness and rules that were made when England had a worldwide empire. If English men and women are not to become easy prey for bullies and patriots the world over, there must be real penalties for targetting our people wherever they are. If Scots target English people, they must be punished in a way that conveys that it is England that is punishing them. It needs to be explicit and beyond contest.

When Britains interests were threatened in the past, a warship was sent into the nearest harbour to ensure that the threats were rescinded. Something along the same lines needs to be recreated. Weakness encourages attacks. Power prevents them. Thus it has ever been.

Sighs of relief heard round the world

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5121164.stm

The mainstream media all round the world can now trumpet that Hamas are no longer a terrorist organisation, are no longer a threat to Israel, and are no longer international pariahs. This is crucial of course, so that the cash taps full of US and European money can be turned back on, and deluge the Palestinian people in their customary ocean of other peoples hard-earned cash. It sure as hell does not matter to the mainstream media if Hamas actually is still a threat to Israel- what matters is all that lovely cash.

Funny how differently pieces of paper are treated by the mainstream media- the 'Prisoners Initiative' is being talked about like it single-handedly wipes racist, islamist Hamas' bloodsoaked slate clean; whereas the documents found in Iraq which can reliably be verified to have come from Saddams secret service files which show links between Al Qaeda and other islamofascist terrorist groups pre-9/11 don't even seem to merit a quick glance from the news wire services and the usual MSM suspects.

What can now be guarunteed is a concerted attempt all across the globe to 'mainstream' Hamas and give it both money and diplomatic credibility. If the western democracies don't wake up, and concentrate, we will soon ensure that islamofascists win by a thousand almost imperceptible victories.

But we're losing right?

How do people work out what is going on in Iraq? I mean, people who don't read Iraqi blogs, military blogs, counter-insurgency blogs or embedded journalist blogs. If you just read the BBC website, listen to the BBC news or the witless ramblings of BBC correspondents, this story will come as a shock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5117170.stm

Iraqi oil is pouring from the ground and into the worlds economies with record-breaking speed and quantity. But the coalition is losing right? The insurgency is winning and making HalliburtonBushitler eat Iraqi dirt? Right? Its all very mystifying.

How is one to match up all this contradictory information? How is it possible that according to the BBC insurgents control many cities, are seemingly never killed (I can't remember a BBC story recording the dizzyingly high death statistics for insurgents in Iraq) and are capable of launching large, effective attacks on coalition troops (if the video camera is rolling and there aren't too many actual coalition troops there to participate), and yet the oil keeps on coming? All those masses of fact-starved people must be highly confused.

The fact is, the BBC can't report this war because it hates what is happening. The US and Britain are fighting a successful war against a muslim enemy in the heart of the middle east, blithely ignoring the stern warnings of a new Vietnam and many other horrors intoned by the august BBC and NBC and Reuters and Agence France Press and the New York Times. Now matter how much all the combined aging hippies of the world wish it was not so, the US and Britain (with teeny tiny bits of help from some other nations) are kicking seven shades of poop out of the insurgency and we will win. Its very close now.

Thank God that the hippy generation only have at most ten more years before they subside into disgruntled and unloved retirement. They will not be missed. Virtually everything they stand for is discredited, virtually every claim they've ever made was a lie, and virtually every prediction they've ever made failed to materialise. With a record like that, they merit no more attention from the rest of the world.

I just love this

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-if-you-held-gitmo-protest-nobody.html

The massed hordes of America-haters and human rights fanatics forgot to show up for this protest. Fantastic!

Perhaps they started to believe the US Governments statements about Gitmo, and not America's enemies lies. No really, it could happen.

A BBC Foreign Office statement said...

You have to laugh- in this story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5114014.stm

the following appears:

'The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says there are concerns that Mr Maliki's plan will not work as it does not seek reconciliation with those at the heart of the insurgency - the radical Islamists, many of them foreigners, who want Iraq to be the centre of a new Islamic empire.'

And you thought the BBC was a news organisation, employing Journo's to report facts from various locations around the world! Its more like a world government writ small. Turns out, the BBC's Foreign Minister is happy to hand out advice to various countries from his Baghdad Hotel/Fortress, if he thinks their policies are naive or just plain stupid. Jim Muir has decided that its the Islamists who are at the heart of the Iraqi insurgency (which will come as a shock to the 130,000 US soldiers who daily fight the Ex-Baathists and Sunni nationalists) and it is they that the Iraqi govmnt should parlay with. And he's not afraid to tell them! I do hope they're grateful.

Of course, there could be blowback. What if it turns out that actually Al Qaeda in Iraq and the other islamist groups are just a few hundred losers, and actually the insurgency is mostly Sunni ex-Baathist soldiers and special forces? And what if Mr Maliki makes an accomodation with those ex-Baathists and the insurgency dries up and blows away? It will leave a rather bad taste in the mouths of those hectored by the BBC's foreign office... They would be forgiven for thinking that it would be unwise for ANYBODY to listen to advice from people cut off from real information whose every utterance betrays an ideological bias which blinds them to salient facts.

Trouble is, reading the blogs of soldiers and embeds in Iraq gives so much real information that being confronted by the peurile, sterile, fact-free BBC drivel makes you crave the red meat of FACTS. The whole narrative of this conflict has been missed by that useless bunch of aging hippies. For those of us who've been tracking this war from many sources, there WAS a time when a lot of foreign jihadis were making their way to Fallujah and then Ramadi. But the foreigners have alienated the Sunni's they were meant to be fighting with, and the routes into Iraq from the west have been mainly throttled. The 'big war' going on in Iraq has for many months now not been between the Coalition forces and a combined jihadi/baathist insurgency, but between the baathist rump/sunni nationalists and their opposite numbers in the Shia militias. Virtually everybody in Iraq knows that, its only the numbnut BBC journo's who haven't caught up. Maliki knows it- he needs to disarm both the Baathists and the Shia militias to have any hope of running an Iraq worth living in.

The jihadi's know (read Zarqawis own words about it) that they are very much a declining force and that their days are numbered. Most Iraqis see them as very much a problem, rather than part of the solution. Also, because they are Sunni, Al Qaeda in Iraq are detested by the Shia both in Iraq and Iran. The number of new jihadi recruits is declining as the kill ratio's for them and the Coalition forces diverge. For every US soldier killed or injured, 25-30 insurgents die or are captured. Not even the slum-dwellers of Riyadh and Amman are going to head into that without some trepidation.

The whole way down the line, the BBC as an organisation has not been able to get its head round this war. Its reporting has been shockingly bad, and virtually all its many predictions about future developments have been wrong. But then thats because they are based on WISHES rather than FACTS. When you can't stand the facts, its time to retire and write wish-fulfillment fiction. But please, do it on your own time, not with tax-payers money.

What a luxurious life

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-stein25jun25,1,7803731.story?coll=la-news-comment

A luxurious lifestyle is one where you can do anything you like, say anything you like, believe anything you like, but nothing in your benign little world changes or becomes more threatening. For this Rabbi, we're pretty much all the same- Christians, Jews and Muslims are equally barbaric, malevolent, aggressive and depraved.

In a world far too often dominated by politicians imbued with religious fundamentalism of all flavors — Jewish, Christian, Muslim — we need the thoughtfulness, self-awareness and subtlety that comes from progressive religious expression.

Which parts of the world are dominated by Jewish and Christian fundamentalist politicians again? Where on this planet are Jews and Christians engaged in full frontal warfare against their religious opponents out of religious fervour? Virtually every peice of real estate on the planet which muslims share with non-muslims hosts warfare conducted by the followers of Muhammed (SBUH) against the unbelievers. There are no parallels with this in any other religious community. How Rabbi Stein can morph that vast mountain of evidence into 'we're all guilty' mush is bizarre verging on deranged.

I mean really- 'Thoughtfulness, self-awareness and sublety'? I just don't see those as values promoted in islam. Try 'No thought, self-blindness and brutality'. There is actually evidence for my version.

Thing is, unlike in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Egypt, Rabbi Stein's world is soft and luxurious and easy. You can say just about anything without fear. Nobody will hack his head off with a butchers knife if he blasphemes or makes a joke about big Mo. How lucky he is- and how careless with the freedom he has.

Independance from What?

Over at Indymedia.org.uk, I searched in vain for a story not from the left-wing environmental perspective. After all, the commonly understood meaning of the word independance is 'not committed to any particular orthodoxy or dogma'. Sadly, orthodoxy and dogma are all that is available.

The Gaza Sea Weeps Blood
11-06-2006 16:12

On Friday, 9th of June, the Isreali Navy shelled families holidaying on Gaza beach. Ten people were obliterated in the bombing and children were left screaming over the mutilated bodies of their loved ones. Please follow the Full Article link for more details.

The situation in Palestine is becoming more desperate in every area of life, from the continual land theft and increase in illegal settlements across the West Bank to the daily incursions, assassinations and arrests.

As those who care to find out can attest, Human Rights Watch (one of the most anti-Israel pro-Palestinian human rights organisations) has declared itself satisfied that an Israeli Defense Force investigation of this tragedy fair and honest. IDF artillery was not responsible for the blast. It is probable that it was either unexploded ordnance (origin unknown) or a homemade Palestinian rocket which went badly off course.

But facts have no truck with dogma and orthodoxy. And left-wing dogma and orthodoxy decree that when poor ickle Palestinians die, Israelis are to blame. There is no attempt in this peice to ascertain facts, to assess responsibility or to make a reasoned judgement about what occured. But then researching, assessing and reasoning take time, effort and emotional balance. Despite IndyMedia's name, independance is not its game.

Our Jack Bauer is called Mohammed something

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2024

When MI5 first went public with their website, I visited it out of curiousity. Very prominent on the Careers page (sadly its been changed now) was a picture of an asian girl. Obviously the security services were quite sure who they needed to recruit. I immediately thought 'They would never be so stupid as to recruit British muslims to work for the secret service!'. Sadly, I was wrong. But then the geniuses in MI5 also recruited lots of lefties at the height of the cold war who turned out to be soviet spies too... leaving Britains secret service the laughing stock of the international intel community. So really, I should have guessed what they'd do. So instead of being cold-hearted realists and forgetting for a moment the PC bullshit mantra that says you have to have a 'diverse' security service, our security has been compromised from the very outset.

It makes me want to pull my hair out. There are primary school children out there who know that a muslim is virtually by definition a traitor. Most of them will tell you matter-of-factly to your face that they don't feel allegiance to Britain, and that their first allegiance is to islam. Fine. Just DON'T GIVE THEM A JOB IN THE AGENCY WHICH IS OUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST THEM IN THEIR PLOTS TO DESTROY OUR SOCIETY FROM WITHIN.

I have a gut feeling that Tony Blair understands all this perfectly well, but that MI5 are pretty much outside of Westminster and Downing street control. Under Elisabeth I, the English spy network was the best on the planet. Under her 21st century namesake, I suspect its getting on for the worst. I pray and hope that I'm wrong.

Please try to follow the arguments...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,1794445,00.html

Here we go. This is how lefty idiot arguments go-

1. 'Fury over internal Met study which says Asians need special training'. This is our starting point. We, the oppressive majority, have made the poor ickle Pakistanis furious. Thats BAD.

2. There may well be huge swathes of incriminating evidence against Pakistani policemen, 'complaints of misconduct and corruption against Asian officers are 10 times higher than against their white colleagues', but that JUST DOESN'T MATTER

3. There is a principle much higher than the rule of law:
"Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family ... and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality." You see, they can't HELP it because its their culture, innit? And if it comes down to their culture vs ours, theres just no contest.

4. 'The leaking of the report comes at a time when the Met needs the cooperation and trust of the Muslim community more than ever and as the force tries to contain the fallout from last week's anti-terrorist raid in Forest Gate in which a man was shot.' Here it gets interesting- the argument is, forget about corrupt Pakistani policemen! Can't you see we're in the middle of trying to butter these people up? Sheesh! What does it matter if the upholders of the law are corrupt? Get some perspective!!!! We're in full love-in mode here.

5. And now the grand finale 'Superintendent Dal Babu, chairman of the Association of Muslim Officers, said the report had racist undertones. "We are gravely concerned about its contents and the message it sends to recruits and potential recruits," he said. Forget about the facts, forget about the implications for the rule of law, forget about the fact that muslim Pakistani policemen may well cooperate with muslim pakistani terrorists out of loyalty to islam, what is important is that THE ENGLISH ARE A BUNCH OF RACISTS

I hope you've followed those arguments to their only possible logical conclusion.

BBC bias against Israel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5074792.stm

From the beginning, the Israelis said that this definitely was not their artillery. But the BBC headlines were not "Deaths on the beach 'may have been caused by Israeli artillery fire'", there was no doubt in their minds. Now that highly credible evidence is to hand that actually it was one of the Palestinians own crappy rockets that killed their own people, look at the headline... "Beach deaths 'not Israel's fault'". The implication is obvious: if the Israelis report it, it must be lies. Truth was long ago a victim in this conflict, and the BBC are working hard to make sure it stays dead.

Statism rules update

The Lib Dems 'tax cuts' are not tax cuts. They are the normal lefty tree-hugging nonsense.

'The £20bn cost of the cut would be partially met by a £7bn increase in "green" taxes on cars and flights.

The other £13bn would come from the "very wealthy" via capital gains tax changes on second homes and shares.'

Good move. Bashing the rich is always a good populist ploy. The Lib Dems would take us back to the 1970's, when the Labour government managed to propel tens of thousands of highly paid people to other countries so we got NO tax from them at all. All so they can have yet more money to spend on yet more social programs that don't fulfill their function.

'Green' taxes on cars and flights? Why is it that every suggestion from political parties these days carries a further burden for business and wealth-creation? And punishment for those who are successful at it? The Soviet Union tried taking away every individuals incentive to be creative and successful in their working life, and look where it got them. Lets face it, communism failed everywhere it was tried, but instead of learning from that, virtually every European country is moving towards it. Talk about flying in the face of 'best practise'! Hey yeah, lets not copy the US, the single most successful economy in the world ever... lets copy the Soviet Union, with its rigidity and massive waste. Good plan.

I would not put Minge Cambell and his bunch of losers in charge of a lemonade stand, much less the British economy.

Statism rules

Oh My God! Can it be true? The Liberal Democrats are now pledging to CUT income tax (sort of). Despite the fact that almost all of their policies commit public money to some liberal cause or other, they are somehow going to cut taxes... yeah right. Having spotted that the Conservatives are moving into the centre ground (which means an acceptance of the humongous welfare state and bloated government payroll), the Lib Dems have seen an opportunity to outflank them on the right by pledging to cut tax. But most voters, I suspect, will be utterly unconvinced that they understand the fundamental theory underlying lower taxes. The theory is this:

Small government concentrating its resources on the core tasks of the state, leaving most resources in the hands of the subject, where they can do the most good.

The Lib Dems have demonstrated over many years that they believe in the opposite:

Massive government doing absolutely everything you can think of, taking ever more massive quantities of resources, preventing wealth creation.

The Lib Dems are for that portion of the electorate who believe that their fellow citizens need to be nannied in every respect throughout their lives by a huge, hectoring, know-it-all state. This statism is much more prevalent an ideology than any other in todays Britain. All the major parties now subscribe to it. Their only remaining point of contention is which non-core functions government should currently be investing massive amounts of public money into.

Britain needs an alternative political home, where statism is seen for what it is- the main impediment to a prosperous, healthy, interesting polity. Who will do this?

Lets get a divorce from the media

While watching BBC News 24 today, I realized that we are going to have divorce ourselves from the mindless idiots in the media. Last Friday, the anti-terror police raided a house in Forest Gate, East London, a neighborhood I used to live in. Almost immediately it happened, the story changed from 'Terror police raid house, arrest two brothers on suspicion of terrorist-related activities' to 'Neighborhood in uproar as death squads terrorise poor ickle muslim community for kicks (ok, not uproar exactly, because we can't seem to find anybody who is THAT angry, but give us time)'.

What a bunch of moronic panty-waists! They have rushed off from the main point: Dedicated professional Police force hunt for terrorists in suburban Britain, saving YOU and ME from potential bloody, excruciating deaths. And onto their agenda: lazy, stupid racist police interfering with the poor, honest muslims yet again for no good purpose than because they hate the poor, honest muslims.

When the idiots in the media can't focus their tiny brains for five minutes on the fact that dedicated fanatics are plotting daily to poison, blast, shoot, pulp, mince and smash us into submission to their allah, we should consider making them collectively redundant. Don't watch their news programs, don't buy their newspaper, don't listen to their radio programs. And make your own! We can do it if we really really want to.

I'm not going to sit around while somebody takes my England and turns it into little Pakistan. Forget about it. We need an English media for English people. Soon.

Jizya/danegeld

http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/mc/media_communique.php?id=775

Yesterday we were told by a number of commentators that problems with violent young muslims are our fault because we don't give them nice enough houses, jobs, lifestyles etc.

This communique from the Canadian branch of the Religion of Peace (ironic) repeats the same message: give us money or we will get more violent. If memory serves (from those old Hollywood movies about gangland Chicago) thats called extortion. How long is the West going to tolerate this protection racket?

I like a more straightforward proposition: No more violence or no more islam in the West.

China: the worlds least moral power

Who are the least moral capitalist imperialists? China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5045496.stm

This BBC story says 'China's quiet pursuit of raw materials in Africa in return for cheap Chinese goods has caused considerable concern.' Hmmm. Lets see, which countries have been lambasted by every crappy polytechnic sociology lecturer in Britain for 'pursuing raw materials and dumping cheap goods' in Africa, indeed the world? Not China, thats for sure. The Chinese are the good guys, according to the lefty morons. Why? Because... they're not the Americans, I think.

Mr Mugabe thinks the Chinese are just fab- but then it must be obvious to even the most casual observer by now that the best way to the determine the truth of a proposition is to find out what Mr Mugabe thinks; the exact opposite will be the truth.

Its time for Britain and America to work out a better strategy for dealing with an aggressive, militant China. Sending them all our money, and letting them hoover up all the oil supplies seems... inadequate. And waiting for what seems to be an inevitable ecological disaster could be too long in the gestation.

Not bored enough? Lets make things much more boring!

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C03%5Cstory_3-6-2006_pg13_1

Was alerted to this by Little Green Footballs. Viz my previous post about how difficult it is these days to persuade people that what they really want is a boring life, obeying stultifying islamic dictates: the Pakistanis, who already have one of the worlds dullest societies want to keep it that way! I guess the almost endless stream of people leaving Pakistan to go ANYWHERE else should give us a clue about how much people appreciate that!

I have a colleague who has relatives in Pakistan. A few years back she went to visit them. She was meant to be there for 10 days. After 4 or 5 days of sitting around the house completely bored (couldn't go out by herself, nothing to watch on TV, nothing to listen to on the radio, not much electricity, men quite aggressive with her because she was WAY too westernised) she came back to England. Can you blame her?

And we are supposed to WANT this regime of boredom and poverty?

Submit or be bludgeoned

Over the past two decades, Ms Andrabi has led campaigns against alcohol and prostitution in Kashmir. She has played an important role in closing down cinemas, accused television channels of corrupting the youth and has raided internet cafes and restaurants for allowing young couples to meet privately.

For her activism, Andrabi has been in and out of jail many times.

Recently, she accused beauty parlours of promoting obscenity, describing them as dens of prostitution. She issued an ultimatum, asking them to shut shop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5028844.stm

We used to have an institution in Britain called Mary Whitehouse. She was a stern upright woman who would have found many points of agreement with Ms Andrabi. She campaigned vigourously for a moral and God-fearing society. She was sure that the country was slipping into a sleazy quagmire and it was her mission to stop it from happening.

But its the differences that are important here not the similarities. Note this:

'Ms Andrabi has often been accused of using force in her campaigns and although she denies the charge, many in Srinagar say they are afraid to speak about her on record.'

NOT Mary Whitehouse then; more like the muslim gestapo. Why is it that this urge to force conformity seems to reek from islam like a bad smell? Want to wear shorts while playing tennis? Then its a bullet in the back of the head for you! Want to have cold brew after work? Definitely a bullet in the back of the head. Want to wear filmy blouse so the blokes can ogle your boobs? I think thats a rusty hack-saw offense.

There is no country, no people, no group in the WORLD who will volunteer to live life like that.

Time for the new Caliphate?

A commentor on a previous post remarked "So what about a new Caliphate that would unite the whole Islamic world including the arabs?"

Here's a quote from the Iranian Woman blog:

The mullahs’ rule has expired because the mullahs don't belong to this age. They belong to an age when stoning, mutilation, and blinding were considered norm.

http://zaneirani.blogspot.com/2006/05/iran-revolutions-dont-wait-for.html

She's right. Forget for a moment what all the muslim men want- we hear from them every day. What do muslim women want? How about a life that is not dictated in all crucial respects by their fathers, husbands and brothers? How about a life that could encompass a public life, involvement in public policy, governance, the upper reaches of business or education? How about a scandalous life that didn't involve being stabbed or beheaded or stoned to death? How about the particular life which that woman wants to live?

This is no minor point. If half the muslim world doesn't want to join the other half in a gigantic act of communal nostalgia for days of lost glory, global importance and reach, it probably won't happen. And if it does, its not going to last very long.

Great big Mosques

The Palestinian government are finding it almost impossible to scrape together the $100 million that the EU and America no longer send their way. Strangely enough, the Saudi's, Syrians, Iranians and all the other loudmouth regimes that constantly bewail their plight are flinty-eyed when it comes to coughing up actual dollars for them. They pledge fifty million bucks here, twenty million bucks there, but the money never seems to appear in the bank! Weird!

But the funny thing is, there's one thing you can always get the Saudi's to part with huge sums for- a stupendously large mosque. Virtually every European country including Britain has had planning permission sought for stupidly large mosques. The one in London is planned for Newham, a few hundred yards from the main London 2012 Olympic site.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892780,00.html

This kind of penis-extension building is meant to demonstrate in physical terms what every muslim all over the world is programmed to say- that islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. Sadly, its more likely to turn out to be what the rest of the world has come to associate with muslims, especially arab ones. There will be a lot of talk, a lot of posturing, a lot of 'bigging up', then NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.

And by the way, muslims- there are 2.1 billion Catholics in the world. That means there are a billion more Catholics than muslims. Woe betide if you should ever stir THAT beast.

Mr George Galloway, MP

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/party-politics/party-politics/galloway-blair-assassination-would-be-justified-$441184.htm

A thought occured to me while reading this article. It would not be morally justified to blow up George Galloway, but it would be bloody good fun. Can this man get any further out into left field? What is he going to suggest next? Perhaps we should hand over Kent to the Syrians for safekeeping... maybe we should close all the churches that still teach Christianity and assign an imam to each neighborhood instead... is it time to rename Britain Dhimmiland?

If I were a British muslim, I'd try to get George Galloway out of the public eye as soon as possible. He is to muslim PR what Lord Haw Haw was for English fascists (for those of you who know a bit about this countries history). Some friends you DON'T need.