Category: UK

I don’t know about what a lot of you out there may think of this but I say, “damned good for him.” Yes, I know some are going to say it’s a publicity stunt, it’s this, it’s that, it’s some other damned thing. It doesn’t matter. For either of you that haven’t heard yet, HRH Prince Henry of Wales (aka Prince Harry) is going to Iraq.

As His Highness puts it:

“There’s no way I’m going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.”

Well said, if I do say so myself…

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, to part two of my run for that li’l old fatwa brass ring. In case you missed yesterday’s post on this, I’m putting up a few YouTube vids that were filmed inside some British mosques by an undercover reporter with Channel 4.

So far, so good. Keep that hate mail rolling in because, you know, that’s the best way to get a guy like me to toe the line.

Because it needs it, that’s why. Yeah, you heard that right. We get told over and over and over again about how Islam is “the religion of peace,” it’s not a threat to us, the majority of muslims just want to live and let live. And if you can’t get that through your head, then you must just not be tolerant enough. You’re just a mean, nasty, Islamophobic bigot who either, at best, is just too ignorant to know any better or, at worst, has some malevolant George-Bushesque hatred rooted deep in your worm-ridden heart.

Bullshit.

In all my years of listening to the acolytes of the multicult dogma who relentlessly bludgeon us with the claim that we can’t judge people by this or that or the other thing, there is one question that I have never, not even once, heard answered:

Just how God damned many times does a man have to see the same thing happen over and over and over and over and over and over again… before he’s allowed to say that he can see it coming?

Any takers? I didn’t think so. Muslims fly planes into buildings, we are told it has nothing to do with Islam. Muslims turn a country into a medieval hellhole, we are told it has nothing to do with Islam. Muslims blow themselves up on busses in London, it has nothing to do with Islam. Muslims (women, too) come out in support of a rape advocate, nothing to do with Islam. Muslims plot to murder Canadians and behead our Prime Minister, no Islam there.

Then why the hell do the perpetrators howl so long and loud that it IS all about Islam, and nothing else?  (Except for those nasty Jews, of course…)

And don’t give me any of that “those are just a few bad apples” bullshit. Spare me the myth of the vast, moderate muslim majority. I’ll stick with the evidence of my own eyes. Where was the “moderate muslim” outpouring of outrage when the TO17 got busted? I didn’t hear a peep. But they sure as hell came out in droves to get their knickers in a twist (and threaten violence in the name of their “peaceful religion”) over a few cartoons, didn’t they?

Britain’s independent Channel 4’s respected Dispatches programme sent a reporter undercover in several major and influential British mosques to see just what was being said behind Jack Q. Briton’s back. Some of what they found will be posted here, in three parts.

Today we start off with:

• Terrorists are innocent, because all kuffaar (that’s you and me) are liars; lying is part of their religion. They are the terrorists, not muslims, and all muslims should hate them.
• Sharia should be obeyed; not the law of the land.
• Muslim terrorists (who are all innocent) are better than non-muslims.
• Muslims should settle for nothing less than a total Islamic state.
• Apostates and homosexuals should be killed outright.
• Free speech is evil unless it incites violence against people muslims don’t like.
• Holy war is coming and you’d better be on the right side.
• Kuffaar schools corrupt your children.
• Women are inferior; beat them if they don’t do as they’re told.
• Pedophilia is fine and dandy.
• Be a bigot, but be two-faced about it so that your ass is covered.

You know, all that good, wholesome religion-of-peace that we have nothing to worry about kind of stuff. Think I’m making this shit up, do you? Well then, smartass, play the vid and see for yourself. And while you’re at it, ask yourself this:

If it can happen in England, just why can’t it happen here?

Part 2 tomorrow…

And now, coming direct from the archives of the Ministry of Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction to your brain: le Union Jacques?

I have gotta check my calendar on this one… Um, nope; not April first. I’m still shaking my melon at this, though. I mean, come on, this has just got to be some kind of scam. It’s a prank, right? Some disgruntled buggers in Britain’s National Archives got tired of some know-it-all supervisor or manager and decided to pull a fast one and show him for the bureaucratic dolt that he is, right? Right…??

The revelation the French government proposed a union of Britain and France in 1956, even offering to accept the sovereignty of the Queen, has left scholars in both nations puzzled.

Newly discovered documents in Britain’s National Archives show former French prime minister Guy Mollet discussed the possibility of a merger between the two countries with then-British prime minister Sir Anthony Eden.

“I completely fell off my seat,” said Richard Vinen, an expert in French history at King’s College in London, England. “It’s such a bizarre thing to propose.”

😯 Well, then; at least I’ve got some company on the floor. Wouldn’t want to be getting lonely down there, you know. My gawd, talk about mixing oil and water –or is that and ? Where do I even begin with this one?? Here’s the Guardian’s take:

If you’re reading this on a packed, stalled train, late for work, eating a stale station bacon roll, imagine what life could have been like. If France and Britain had gone ahead with an audacious plan in the 1950s to merge the two countries, the train might have been on time, and faster, the croissants better, but then again, with Paris’s current unemployment problem, there might not have been a job to go to.

Touché. The Yorkshire Post was even more blunt:

WE might have learned a thing or two about gastronomy and dressing with style, but we’d never have accepted their two-hour lunch breaks. They’d surely have had something derogatory to say about our sheep-like ability to form an orderly queue.

They might have acquired a soupçon of understanding about tolerance, but they’d have blown a gasket at imperial measures and the idea of Sunday trading. And, somehow, I can’t see that the average British child’s lunchbox would ever have been converted to baguette and goat’s cheese.

Culturally we’re poles apart, and might as well be at opposite ends of the continent, even with the latter-day efforts of burger chains, coffee parlours and Marks and Spencer to homogenise us. La Manche could be as wide as the Atlantic, for all we have in common with our French neighbours.

Well, that’s one way of putting it. As for me, I shudder to think of what rough beast, its hour come round, would have slouched towards London and Paris to be born of such an unholy union. Thank God Her Majesty’s Prime Minister of the day (Rt Hon Sir Anthony Eden) shot the idea down.

Seriously now, can you imagine slurping back dead snails over a pint? Or washing down bangers and mash with a bottle of Chateau du Snooté? Thinks those are silly? Try this one: a French Royal Marine.

Talk about dodging a bullet…

I have to tell you, it’s not often that I find myself using those two words together like that. The Brits, by and large, tend to be a little more (although no, not completely) immune to spasms of idiotic legislation than those of us in the new world but even they can suffer from a little cerebral flatulence from time to time. This is clearly one such time.

It seems that the British Parliament is contemplating legislation where, in addition to “no” meaning “no,” all of a sudden “yes” can mean “no,” too, if the woman has been drinking. Let’s make something clear here: we aren’t talking about a passed-out woman being violated by some slobbering lout; we’re talking about some birds that go out for a good time, do the deed with all cognizance and enthusiasm, and then just have second thoughts the next morning.

George McAuley, chairman of the UK Men’s Movement, said men may have to resort to obtaining written ‘contracts’ or using their mobile phones to film their partners consenting to sex.

He said: “Radical feminists within the Labour party have made consensual heterosexual sex a dangerous minefield. The changes in legislation will increase the number of innocent men convicted of rape.

“It means men will have to get a consent form signed, dated and countersigned in triplicate before they make love.

“This legislation is deliberately designed to put more men behind bars.”

If I go out with my mates, get blasted and do something idiotic, I’m the one that has to live with it. I can’t just boo-hoo “I was drunk” and get off the hook for responsibility for my own voluntary actions. If I crack some guy in the head with a bottle, drive drunk, take a whiz on a parking meter or whatever, I’m the one on the hook for it, not somebody else. Why the hell wouldn’t women be held to the same standard? Or, as Lydia Loveric over at the Winterpeg Sun puts it:

…a woman who has a bit too much alcohol — of her own volition — and invites a man back to her place for some non-existent coffee and proceeds to squeal “yes” in every way possible can not and must not cry rape afterwards.

Want to be seen as a strong, independent woman? Then you damned well better be ready to live with the choices you make. Just like we have to.