In the preceding post, I gave you Geert Wilders’ entire speech about the threat Islam poses to the West. I now offer you living evidence of the threat he describes.
A little less than a year ago, after the French enacted the burqa ban that just recently went into effect, I published a post entitled When is a burqa, not a burqa? When it’s a weapon, in which I wrote the following:
Because Islamic religious trappings are not about man’s relationship to God but, instead, are about man’s relationship to the Islamic state, every Islamic procedure or practice, whether it’s abstaining from alcohol, ritual foot washing, burqas or minarets is, in essence, a body count. The number of burqa clad women in any given society is the equivalent of a Western census. If you can get all of your women to wear the burqa and then, through rape and acid-throwing intimidation, get all of their women to wear the burqa, you’ve won. Who cares that the women so clad are not closer to Allah? It’s enough that they’ve been submitted, willingly or not, to Islam. There is no faith involved, just force and a numbers game.
Today, in a British newspaper, I read this:
Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.
Other targets of the ‘Talibanesque thugs’, being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.
Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: ‘Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment’.
It is believed Muslim extremists are behind a spate of attacks being investigated by police, according to the Sunday Times.
An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted.
When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: ‘If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you’.
The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job.
She said: ‘Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven’t done anything wrong.’
It’s all about body counts. When the critical mass of women in London, Muslim or not, are in burqas, it’s an Islamic country. Likewise, when the gays — the same ones who currently insist on siding politically with the Muslims against the Jews — are all hanged, it’s an Islamic country.
We in the West aren’t dying with our boots on; we’re dying in an abject, multiculturalist, politically correct grovel.
Britain, apparently, has solved the puzzle of criminal recidivism (H/T Melanie Phillips of the Spectator).
I know that this story provides us with a most important clue as to the greater disease that afflicts Western Civilization.
I really just don’t know what to do with this story, so I am passing it on to all of you greater intellects and other Bookworm Room habitues for a more proper fisking while I try to reorient my conceptualization of the “real world”.
We are doomed!
I’m not quite sure how to describe this one without giving away the whole weird little joke. Suffice to say that it’s quick and amusing.
As for this one, you’ll be interested to know that Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians (“RCO”) believes women should be advised that, generally speaking, abortions are better for their physical health than having a baby. This is technically correct, but so morally appalling, I’m at a loss for words. The same RCO also says that there’s no merit to the studies that abortions left some women mentally damaged or bereft:
The guidance also says that women who are deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most do not suffer any psychological harm. Until now, their advice has been that while rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who had an abortion, there was no evidence that termination itself was likely to trigger psychological problems.
In other words, mostly crazy ladies have abortions…. Yeah, that’s a club I want to join. Please read the whole thing over at Brutally Honest.
Pakistan? No. Britain! If the British government, under PM Cameron is serious about cutting down the multiculturalism monster, this is a good place to start. Old multi-culti pieties prevented British institutions from daring to criticize the Muslims amongst them. A serious commitment to Western values would mean cracking down on these child abuse factories.
The Archbishopric of Canterbury used to be a pretty important job. The guy who held that position, going back to the earliest Middle Ages, was the premier leader of the English church, whether that church gave allegiance to Rome or the British Monarch. The current Archbishop, Rowan Williams is, as best as I can tell, insane.
A few years ago, he made a place for himself on the radar by supporting sharia law which is (a) anti-Christian and (b) antithetical to Western notions of human rights. I don’t need to tell any of you that, under sharia law, Christians and Jews, if they are allowed to live, are second class citizens; women are prisoners of men and can be beaten or murdered with impunity; homosexuals are routinely murdered by the State; and the whole theocratic tyrannical institution seeks world domination.
Williams’ apparent comfort with the idea of creating a vast prison for the entire world population may stem from the fact that his view of prisoners is, to say the least, unique. He thinks that even the worst of them should be entitled to the full panoply of rights, including the right to vote. Yes, this is true. The Archbishop of Canterbury would be comfortable giving, say, Charles Manson or the Yorkshire Ripper a voice in electing government officials, determining government spending, creating laws controlling citizens, etc:
The Archbishop of Canterbury today said prisoners should get the vote, backing an axe killer whose campaign has been endorsed by European courts.
John Hirst, who hacked his landlady to death, yesterday boasted that he was on the verge of forcing the Government to ‘wave the white flag of surrender’, as MPs prepare to vote on the move tomorrow.
The leader of the Church of England Dr Rowan Williams today said that prisoners should keep their dignity – and that their rights should not be put in ‘cold storage’ while they are behind bars.
‘We’re in danger of perpetuating a penal philosophy and system which actually leaves everybody as victims,’ he said.
He told a Commons committee that the country should move beyond ‘a situation where the victimising of the prisoner by the denial of those basic civic issues is perpetuated.’
‘The prisoner as citizen is somebody who can on the one hand expect their dignities as a citizen to be factored into what happens to them.’
That the lunatics who have taken over the EU asylum would like to perpetuate their power by giving the vote to those who have, through their conduct, blatantly violated the social compact is, sadly, understandable. What’s so deeply disturbing here is that it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who has slipped his moorings and is advocating the same inversion of morality and decency. This is the man, after all, who is supposed to stand for the highest Christian traditions — traditions that include respect for the sanctity of life and law. For him to treat an axe murderer in precisely the same way he treats the shopkeeper on the street corner is a travesty of the notions of grace, decency and ethics.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
I’d like to think this is a joke, but modern Britain being modern Britain, I’m actually sure it’s not. One can only hope that at least some people will give the correct response to such an intrusive, inappropriate question: “Bugger off!”
Are you straight or gay? Police and nurses to be asked their sexuality in new equality drive
Millions of teachers, nurses and policemen could be asked to disclose their sexuality, religion and race as part of a new Coalition equality drive.
Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone says all public sector organisations should consider sending ‘diversity monitoring forms’ to staff to prove they are treating all sections of society fairly.
Her plans are suggested in a guide to how public bodies should comply with the Act. Critics fear it will lead to an avalanche of bureaucracy and expense just as jobs are under threat and budgets are slashed.
It also says that complying with the equality duty ‘may involve treating some people better than others, as far as this is allowed by discrimination law’. (Emphasis mine.)
Is it just me, or did that last sentence sound purely Orwellian? “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”
Thirty years ago, I went to England through my university’s junior year abroad program. Although I had visions of walking across Cambridge’s or Oxford’s sun-dappled lawns, I actually ended up in the north of England. My disappointment swiftly turned to pleasure when I discovered that the north of England was much more “English” than the South. While the South already then had a large international community, augmented by hordes of tourists, the north was still quintessentially British.
That is no longer true. While I might have expected the north to become “internationalized,” as the South was, something different has happened: the north has become Pakistan on the Atlantic. I already learned this a few years ago when I met a woman from Leeds who told me that whole towns have become predominantly Pakistani. More than that, she said, the incoming Muslims, or “Asians” as the Brits called them, targeted Jewish neighborhoods, aggressively replacing the existing population.
Despite know this, it still surprises me when I read an article highlighting the huge demographic shift in the most English part of England. The Daily Mail has an article about the fact that, owing to Political Correctness, British law enforcement and the British political system are refusing to acknowledge that Muslim men are systematically grooming white British girls for prostitution. It’s a shocking article overall but, ironically, the part that shook me most was this one:
Those convicted allegedly represent only a small proportion of what one detective called a ‘tidal wave’ of offending in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and the Midlands.
Are we weirdly privileged to get front-row seats for the spectacle of a culture committing suicide? I guess so.
It turns out that the young man who hung on the Union Jack flag in order to climb a cenotaph dedicated to the dead of WWI, a cenotaph that has inscribed on it in large letters “the glorious dead,” has apologized, claiming he knew not what he did.
First of all, any halfway civilized person knows that people will take umbrage if, during a violent protest, you use your nation’s flag as a rappelling rope. Second, as noted, the Cenotaph doesn’t hide its identity as a war memorial. It has written all over it encomiums to the “glorious dead.” Further, it’s not a minor little memorial. Instead, it’s quite famous Cenotaph, located at England’s political heart:
Probably the best-known cenotaph in the modern world is the one that stands in Whitehall, London at 51°30′09.6″N 0°07′34.1″W / 51.502667°N 0.126139°W / 51.502667; -0.126139 (The Cenotaph, London). It was designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens, who conceived the idea from the name of a structure (“Cenotaph of Sigismunda”) in Gertrude Jekyll’s garden, and constructed from Portland stone between 1919 and 1920 by Holland, Hannen & Cubitts. It replaced Lutyens’s identical wood-and-plaster cenotaph erected in 1919 for the Allied Victory Parade commissioned by David Lloyd George, and is a Grade I listed building. It is undecorated save for a carved wreath on each end and the words “The Glorious Dead”, chosen by Rudyard Kipling. It commemorates specifically the victims of the First World War, but is used to commemorate all of the dead in all wars in which British servicemen have fought. The dates of WWI and WWII are inscribed on it in Roman numerals. The design was used in the construction of many other war memorials throughout the British Empire. The British Tomb of the Unknown Warrior is located nearby in Westminster Abbey.
The sides of the Cenotaph are not parallel, but if extended would meet at a point some 300 metres (980 ft) above the ground. Similarly, the “horizontal” surfaces are in fact sections of a sphere whose centre would be 900 feet (270 m) below ground.
It is flanked on each side by various flags of the United Kingdom which Lutyens had wanted to be carved in stone. Although Lutyens was overruled and cloth flags were used, his later Rochdale cenotaph has stone flags. In the years following 1919, the Cenotaph displayed a Union Flag, a White Ensign, and a Red Ensign on one side and a Union Flag, a White Ensign, and a Blue Ensign on the other side. On 1 April 1943, an RAF Ensign was substituted for the White Ensign on the west side of the monument. The flags displayed as of 2007 represent the Royal Navy, the British Army, the Royal Air Force, and the Merchant Navy.
It also turns out that it’s reasonable to assume that the young man at issue is familiar with both London landmarks and the Cenotaph’s fame. You see, he wasn’t just any old protester. Instead, the young man, Charlie Gilmour, is the son of Pink Floyd guitarist, Dave Gilmour. One has to assume a certain amount of sophistication — that is, a familiarity with London — from a young man raised in those august rock circles. Add to that the fact that Charlie was a history major and, well, the plea of ignorance pretty much falls apart.
But there’s more going on here than an unconvincing apology. This riot was about increased tuition. The same article that discusses Charlie’s manifestly insincere apology notes that his father is worth 80 million pounds. In other words, given both Charlie’s age, which puts him past his university years, and his family wealth, this wasn’t his fight. He was there, instead, to take part in a protest for protest’s sake.
His presence for the “fun” is no little thing. In timely and coincidental manner, today’s FrontPage Magazine has a review of a new book, Anna Geifman’s Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia. Her book notes the ideological tend line that began with the death cult of Russian anarchy and communism, traveled to Nazi Germany, and right now manifests itself with modern Islamism. By death cult, Geifman does not mean that these ideologies result in lots of deaths, although they do. Instead, Geifman writes about, and I’m focusing on, the fact that these ideologies are dedicated to death:
Geifman maintains dogma has nothing to do with terrorist violence in the two principal eras studied. Many Russian revolutionaries knew little about socialist theory, while Islamist terrorists are often ignorant of the Koran’s tenets. The causes the terrorists espouse are simply the means, and a camouflage, to sustain their anti-life religion of violence and to make the blood sacrifices their God of Death demands. Similar to the Russian revolutionary and Islamist movements were India’s Thugs who murdered thousands of unsuspecting travellers as human sacrifices to their death goddess, Kali. But unlike the Thugs, in carrying out the murderous rites of their pagan religion inside of a religion, the Marixst and Islamist terrorists often sacrifice themselves.
I acquit useful idiot Charlie Gilmour of being an informed acolyte of the confluence of two death cults, Islamism and anarchy. I don’t, however, see it as coincidence that he swung from a memorial raised to those who died defending Western civilization, a culture that has always been dedicated to choosing life. (And no, it’s not an oxymoron to speak of war dead in the same sentence as choosing life. It’s not merely the fight that matters, unless you’re a moral relativist. What matters is the cause for which one fights. A soldier who dies in the cause of freedom, as opposed to totalitarianism, is choosing life even as he willing accepts the possibility of death.)
Poor Charlie, who has manifestly fallen into Britain’s Leftist, anarchic circles (even if his dad didn’t raise him this way), has been steeped in the culture of death. For him to swing from his nation’s flag in order to scale a memorial raised to the dead was, consciously or not, a logical outcome of his upbringing and ideology.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
In past posts, I’ve noted that it isn’t surprising that British women are converting in surprisingly high numbers to Islam. In a secularized, socialized, de-moralized Britain (and, by de-moralized, I mean a place remarkably free of traditional morality), the women are pickled in alcohol, and encouraged to have sex at the drop of a hat with whomever happens to be convenient.
In other words, Britain’s social mores — or lack thereof — have abandoned its to a type of decadence that and debauchery that is soul destroying. Islam, which frees them from the drink and sex culture, must seem to offer a redemptive purity. The price they pay — complete submission to men — seems small, since they were already completely submitted to men, only in a debauched, not a “pure” way.
The Muslims understand this. Although the value they place is women is stifling and dehumanizing, they still value their women more than Britain values its women. Muslims clearly see Western women in precisely the same terms that those women see themselves: as unprotected vessels to satisfy men’s sexual desires.
Yes, you read that post caption correctly. British Liberal Democrat Jenny Tonge, in a speech in the House of Lords, claims that terrorism around the world is Israel’s fault, because Israel treats the Palestinian’s badly:
On the issue of world conflict prevention, Tonge then said: “It is a disgrace to us all that problems such as Kashmir and Palestine are still alienating Muslims all over the world.
“The treatment of Palestinians by Israel is held up as an example of how the West treats Muslims,” she said, “and is at the root cause of terrorism worldwide.”
You have to check out the JPost article to get the full flavor of her delusional rant.
How does one talk to someone like this, someone who, moreover, has quite the bully pulpit to articulate her particular brand of insane poison? It doesn’t seem to occur to her that, even if one assumes that her premise is true, and that Israel doesn’t treat Palestinians well, that’s scarcely an explanation for the Muslims’ worldwide terror spree. If not being treated well explains worldwide terrorism, we should be on the receiving end of terrorism from Israelis, who are treated badly by the surrounding Muslims; from Kurds, who are brutalized by the Turks; from Christians, who are brutalized everywhere in the Muslim world; from expatriate Cubans, whose compadres are prisoners in their own country; from Tibetans, who are on the receiving end of totalitarian, often genocidal treatment from the Chinese; etc.
But that’s logic, and logic doesn’t work in crazy land. This is a woman who has convinced herself that jihad has nothing to do with Islam itself, and everything to do with victim status. Well, it’s time for the Jews to start claiming victim status, then. Maybe that will turn around her lunacy. Or maybe not, because what we’re really seeing here is hardcore antisemitism, of the type that knows no logic or rationality.
When I studied in England, I did so using money I’d saved from a decade of work (starting when I was ten). I took care of neighbor’s houses, mowed their lawns, babysat their kids, cleaned their cars, etc. I had a goal and I worked to pay for it.
I was taken completely aback by the fact that all of the students I met in England had government subsidies for their education. The working class students were completely subsidized. The upper class were partially subsidized. All had running overdrafts at their banks, meaning none had to live within a budget. Each told me earnestly that this was to ensure that everyone had equal access to education. Considering how class stratified England still was 30 years ago, that made a kind of weird sense to me. Universities weren’t about education or hard work, they were about breaking the class barriers. I got it. (Or at least, I thought I got it.)
This week, we learned that certain Brits think that education is about breaking more than class barriers: it’s about breaking budgets, windows, heads, etc. As it happens, the outsized violence of the protests against tuition increases is not coincidental. The leaders of the protests, the ones who took it from a march of spoiled children to a mob of violent anarchists, had far left ideology as their drummer.
Nowadays, wherever there’s bloodshed and violence, you can be virtually assured that one of two forces is behind it: Islam or Leftism.
My post caption is an exaggeration, but what’s frightening is that it’s only a slight exaggeration, as a government committee really does advise banning meat as part of its push to reduce greenhouse gases. Right now, it advices using government manipulation to ban these products, but you just know brute force will soon follow:
Wholesale changes to the nation’s diet, with a move towards vegetarian food and away from beef and cheese, have been recommended by Government advisers.
A report commissioned by the Food Standards Agency suggests radical changes to what we eat and even how we cook.
These include eating more seasonal produce to reduce transportation and switching to microwave ovens and pressure cookers to use less energy in preparing food.
Out would go beef, cheese, sugary foods and drinks such as tea, coffee and cocoa. In would come vegetables and pulses, together with yoghurt.
The FSA says the switch is necessary as part of a move to a diet that is low in greenhouse gases (GHG), which are associated with climate change.
The report, compiled by a team from the University of East Anglia, suggests that schools, hospitals and other public bodies should be expected to lead a change in national behaviour by putting low-GHG food on their menus.
I like meat. I have canines that bite meat. I have enzymes in my gut that process meat. And I have organs in my body, including my brain, that depend on meat. If people want to be vegetarians, I wholeheartedly support them. I draw the line, though, at living in a nation that sees the government coerce me into abandoning a significant part of my development as a human.
And no, that last statement isn’t just me being hyperbolic. One of my favorite books in the last few years is Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. It’s a delightful book, that should be read in its entirety. I can, however, distill for you the core message: Cooking, especially cooking meat, releases all the nutrients that our brains crave. (And did you know that the brain is one of the greediest organs in the body when it comes to nutrition?) The fact that humans don’t have giant jaws, giant guts and teeny brains, is because we use flame to release nutrients, allowing us to have extra mental and physical energy to do all the things humans do. Because of flame — and because of flame-cooked meat — we build cathedrals and highways, rather than hunting and eating every waking minute.
A couple of weeks ago, I ranted about the way bureaucracies are relentless in pursuit of some imaginary perfection. My focus was health care, but I noted that bureaucracies will always keep going, trying to nail every detail down, so much so that life becomes impossible. Britain perfectly proves my point about bureaucracies:
Local government bureaucrats have had to follow 74,000 pages of new rules and instructions handed down by Whitehall over the past decade, council chiefs complained yesterday.
The forest of red tape was a product of 4,000 different laws and circulars covering everything from parish council election advice to carbon reduction targets.
The direct cost to taxpayers of demands sent down by ministers to town halls amounts to £900 million a year and the overall losses could be as high as £2.5 billion annually, the Local Government Association said.
The British government has proposed stealth communism: all paychecks go to the government first, which then doles out to the wage earner whatever amount the government feels is the wage earner’s due. Think about it. As Pat Sajak wrote yesterday, withholding is bad enough, because it deprives the worker of a sense of ownership over that portion of the money he never sees. Nevertheless, under the withholding system, the employee at least gets some money which he owns. The British government, however, is proposing a system by which ownership of all wages lies with the government. You can dress that up as efficiency, as the Brits are trying to do, but it sure looks like communism to me.
When I lived in England many, many moons ago, I met an English student who had spent the previous summer working, very, very hard, at the local zoo. The highlight of his work day was driving around the little kiddy train, and even that wasn’t much fun. He spent the rest of the time mucking out the animals’ enclosures. He found the elephant enclosure especially distasteful.
His sister, who was about his age, didn’t bother to get a job. She spent her time watching the soaps on telly, going out drinking with her friends, and collecting the dole.
At summer’s end, the sister had gotten more money on the dole than my friend did, despite his hard, honest work. The result was that, while he expected to work a real job once he had his engineering degree, he was very clear that he would never work again until that degree catapulted him into a different income bracket. At the lower bracket, living in a welfare state, it was much smarter not to work at all.
Thirty years on, and that message in England has not changed one iota:
A haulage boss was left stunned after an unemployed driver rejected the offer of a job paying more than £500 a week so he could remain on benefits.
Graham Poole, the managing director of a 23-wagon fleet in Rochdale, offered the job to the man who had been out of work for 18 months only to be told told it was not enough to have him come off government handouts.
The man turned the job down claiming he could get more money on benefits by ‘sitting around at home’.
(You can read the rest here.)
Funnily enough, if a government pays people not to work, they won’t work. The workers have figured that out, of course. The ideologues behind Leftist government prefer not to think about it, as they pursue their social re-engineering goals.
The reckoning always has to come, though. At some point, nobody is left to work, and then the whole Ponzi scheme collapses.
Several years ago, my family and I visited Pompeii, which is one of the most wondrous tourist destinations in the world. To maximize our experience, we hired a highly recommended guide who walked us over the grounds, explaining everything before us. This guide’s particular passion was plumbing. He had no words for the wonders of Roman plumbing, many of which are still visible in Pompeii, and the European tragedy that saw this sophisticated plumbing disappear for around 1800 years. This was also a British tragedy, since England had once enjoyed the benefits of Roman plumbing, only to forget that benefit for centuries, along with the rest of the European world.
I am certainly a fan of modern plumbing. Indeed, when I lived in England thirty years ago, one of the things that stamped it as a civilized country in my mind was the fact that, no matter where one went, one could find clean, functioning public toilets. (We will ignore, for purposes of this post, the execrable toilet paper that accompanied that lovely plumbing.) For a tourist with a small bladder, this was a very big deal.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have been so surprised by England’s heightened appreciation for clean toilets. After all, Thomas Crapper, the father of the modern toilet, was a British subject. Although he may not have invented the modern flush toilet, it was he who brought it to the masses, allowing people to break free from chamber pots that needed to be emptied by hand (usually into the street) or squalid pit toilets in smelly back yards.
Sadly, however, England seems to be retreating to a pre-modern era when it comes to plumbing. In order to accommodate the overwhelmingly delicate sensibilities of new immigrants who have not, in their home countries, enjoyed the blessings of modern plumbing, at least one major commercial outlet in Britain has installed pit toilets, over which one squats, rather than our nice, Western-style thrones:
For centuries, the great British loo has been a matter of envy to the rest of the world.
Thanks to the efforts of pioneers like the legendary Thomas Crapper, we have long since led the world in comfort and hygiene.
Now, however, that could be about to change.
For most of us, the squat toilet is nothing more than a staple of horror stories about old-fashioned French service stations or the exploits of adventurous backpackers in far-flung parts of India.
But this basic form of plumbing, also known as a Turkish toilet or Nile pan, could be coming to a shopping centre near you – and all in the name of cultural sensitivity.
From next week, shoppers in Rochdale who push open the cubicle door expecting the reassuring sight of a modern, clean lavatory could instead be faced with little more than a hole in the ground.
Bosses of the Greater Manchester town’s Exchange mall have installed two as part of an upgrade costing several thousand pounds after attending a cultural awareness course run by a local Muslim community activist.
A familiar sight in parts of the Middle East, and still sometimes seen in France and Italy, the toilets require users to squat above them, rather than sitting.
With one in ten of Rochdale’s population of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, centre managers say they have been told some members of the local Asian community prefer them for cultural reasons.
You can read more on this cultural regression here.
I continue to believe that, when immigrants arrive legally in a new country, they should have made available to them all the opportunities that country affords, that they should not be subject to discrimination because of their immigrant status and that, in the privacy of their own homes and the comforts of their own communities, they should be allowed to surround themselves with the trappings of their home culture, if they so desire.
I have never believed, however, that the destination country should be forced by political correctness to re-make itself into a reasonable simulacrum of the country left behind. After all, I have to assume immigrants move for a reason, which reason, presumably, is that the destination country offers opportunities denied them in their homeland. To turn England into a primitive Pakistani village is ludicrous, and offensive both to the British themselves and to those immigrants who genuinely sought a new life in a new culture.
In 1931, Nancy Langhorne Astor’s son Robert Gould Shaw III was arrested for committing a homosexual act (in a park, I believe). This was a continuation of a long-standing British public policy of prosecuting “sodomists.” Arguably the most famous prosecution was that against Oscar Wilde, for public indecency. The trial, scandal and imprisonment destroyed the noted Victorian wit entirely, and he died in self-imposed, poverty-stricken exile soon after his release from prison.
How times have changed. In 2010, Dale McAlpine, a Baptist preacher in England, was arrested for stating in a public place that homosexuality is a sin.
Have the English no sense of balance or proportion? Do they think that criminalizing people’s thoughts and opinions is the only way to balance the scales for the humiliations they visited on homosexuals in years past?
Anyway, rather than opining more on the subject, let me refer you to my previous post on thought crimes. I think it pretty much covers anything I want to say.
If you want to see what modern socialism looks like, look no further than Britain. I cannot urge you strongly enough to read this article. If it is the only thing you read this week, read this article. Because I read the British papers daily, I can attest to the truth of every fact stated therein — at least insofar as, for the past six or seven years, the various papers have reported facts truthfully.
After you read the article, think long and hard about what the Obami have done and are planning to do. Then be very afraid. And remember November.
England is not one of my favorite places anymore, because of the raging antisemitism that characterizes her politics and her street. Nevertheless, she is our ally and has been our staunch ally for more than a century. For Obama to abandon her over the Falklands is disgusting. At Power Line, in a few words, John nails Obama’s policy vis a vis England (emphasis mine):
So, once again, the Obama administration has sold Great Britain, formerly our #1 ally, down the river, along with the inhabitants of the Falklands, whose opinions would seem to count for something. We are past the point where anyone could doubt that the Obama administration’s hostility toward the U.K. is intentional. Obama seems to have substituted personal pathology for national policy.
I’m careful about calling someone evil, which I think is in an entirely separate class from misguided or ignorant or any other negative adjectives. With this kind of excuse for foreign policy emanating from the White House, though, I’m increasingly inclined to imagine that appellation attached to Obama’s name.
The British, who represent what America will be in 20 years if Obama-stuff continues unchecked, are being offered a way out. Daniel Hannan, the brilliant British conservative speaker, is hosting a Tea Party. Here are details. So far, fewer than 100 people are scheduled to show but that doesn’t mean more won’t show, nor does it mean that this isn’t a decent start. The real question is whether Brits have been so propagandized that they are incapable of political self-defense, or whether their still lurks in their hearts the lust for independence that made them the freest nation in the world before America came along to usurp that position.
And to those who do attend, my favorite inspiring video for the impact just a small group can have (starting at 2:30):
A few days ago, I posted about the fact that, in England, it is illegal to defend yourself against an attack within your own home. I shouldn’t have gotten so upset about the whole thing. You see, it seems that I was operating from a ridiculous premise, which is that one actually has legal rights to a house in England, entirely separate from the right to defend oneself against predators. It now turns out that the British have no rights in property, especially when there’s even a suspicion that the home invaders might be a politically protected class of illegal aliens.
I sound as if I’m on hallucinogenic drugs as I write that, don’t I? Sadly, I’m just reporting the plain facts:
Family shut out of their ‘dream home’ by gang of gipsies who moved in over Christmas
With the building works nearly over, Julian and Samantha Mosedale and their three children were looking forward to moving back into the home of their dreams.
But their hopes have turned into a nightmare because a group of Romanians occupied the property over Christmas.
To add insult to injury, police told them that they were being ‘racist’ for questioning the squatters’ right to live in Britain on benefits.
The unwanted guests have changed the locks at the three-bedroom terrace house and moved in their own furniture.Mr Mosedale, an illustrator, and his wife, a catalogue manager, both 45, had moved out of the house in Tottenham, North London, in July 2007 for extensive structural and renovation work.
They rented another property and regularly visited the £285,000 house to oversee progress.
But, after spending Christmas visiting relatives in Essex, they returned to the house on January 3 to find the squatters installed.
They now fear they could soon be homeless because they can only afford to foot the cost of rent and mortgage payments until March.
Mrs Mosedale, whose three sons are ten, eight, and five, said: ‘We called the police as soon as we found out they were in there. An officer suggested I was racist when I asked if they were Romanians, and did they have a legal right to be in this country.
Yesterday, the couple obtained a county court order giving the squatters 24 hours – until 2.15pm today – to leave.
But Mr Mosedale fears they will not give in easily.
He said: ‘When the papers were served on them they tore them up and threw them back at the guy who’d taken them round.’
He and his wife are also worried that a drawn-out battle would exhaust their savings. They had planned to move back into the house in March.
In the old days, the British were a little over the top when it came to respecting property. You couldn’t vote unless you owned any, and you could be hanged or transported for messing about with someone else’s (with those punishments extending even to small children). I highly approve of the fact that, in the last 150 years, the British have accepted universal suffrage and done away with hanging ten year olds for stealing bread loaves. That shows a high degree of sophistication.
However, having said that, England is utterly insane to rely on the doctrine that “possession is nine tenths of the law” when it comes to real property. This doctrine might make sense in the absence of recorded documents demonstrating ownership. However, once you have recorded legal papers, as we do in modern society, that doctrine should be relegated to the backwaters of illiterate, warlord societies — and, has far as I know, England hasn’t yet sunk to that level.
Ye Olde English weren’t actually so far off when they insisted that only property owners could have a voice in the body politic. Putting aside all the feudal, classist implications of that law, it’s true that people who own real property have a vested interest in the society in which they live. They’ve set down roots and are committed to the country — sometimes suicidally so, as was the case with middle class German Jews who, weighed down by their possessions, didn’t escape in time. The same is true, of course, for nuclear families, since intact families with children have a great deal invested in their country’s future. If you remove all stability from people’s lives, if you promise them that they can never count on the promise of a stable home or an intact family, you’ve effectively gutted the great middle that holds a country together.
One of the most basic principles of Anglo-Saxon common law is a homeowner’s right to defend himself against intruders. Oh, wait! That’s not quite true anymore. In England, which practically gave its name to the notion that “a man’s home is his castle,” homeowner self-defense is against the law (emphasis mine):
Myleene Klass, the broadcaster and model, brandished a knife at youths who broke into her garden – but has been warned by police that she may have acted illegally.
Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear’Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden.
The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away.
Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal.
Mind you, the above rule is separate from the fact that the UK’s strict anti-gun laws have cut off completely one way in which homeowners can defend themselves against intruders. The inevitable, is that burglars feel free to break and enter occupied houses, since they needn’t worry about staring down the wrong end of a gun barrel. (Crime, too, has sky-rocketed.) What’s different about the rule announced in the above article, is that it isn’t just about removing the homeowner’s most effective instrument of defense; instead, it’s about destroying entirely even the thought of self-defense.
I think Miss Klass is to be highly commended for doing whatever she could to defend herself and her daughter against these intruders. After all, if she ever cracks open a paper in England, or turns on the news, she knows that Yob violence is out of control. Britain has successfully turned itself into Anthony Burgess’ Clockwork Orange-vision of a nation equally divided between compliant victims, on the one hand, and brutal psychopaths, on the other.
Thank goodness that, at least in Oklahoma, people are still allowed to defend themselves against home intruders. Otherwise, one very brave and frightened woman, instead of having successfully and with great physical and moral courage defended herself, could be as dead as the average British homeowner:
(You can hear the whole 33 minute long 911 call here.)