Friday, January 13, 2012

UCL students forcibly sensitised to sharia


His Grace has had his differences over the years with Dr Richard Dawkins and the National Secular Society, but on this matter they are quite right. Indeed, if this sinister and illiberal agenda isn’t nipped in the bud pretty quickly, the entire population will wake up one day to find new blasphemy laws in force. And then they’ll be yearning for the long-gone days of the benign Anglican Settlement, when Rowan Atkinson was free to mock ministers of religion in raucous pulpit parody, and the spirit of Spitting Image enlightened closed minds with its biting satire.

It has taken many centuries of religio-political evolution, but liberal democracy has learned to permit expression of the God who laughs (Ps 2:4). So why are the thought police (aided and abetted by government) collaborating on the ascendancy of a god in whom there is no humour? Protests over cartoons satirising Mohammad combined with images of Muslims criticising frivolous aspects of Western culture leave the distinct impression Islam and comedy are incompatible – it is haram. The most concerning thing for Britain is that those Muslims who dare to express humour or satrise aspects of their religion are derided by those who hold to the Puritan School of Islam. Ayatollah Khomeini once said: "An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

Well, the students of UCL don’t agree. And this doubtless includes some Muslim students who have no problem at all with the above cartoon. But it appears they are censored, and being forcibly sensitised to sharia. UCL’s Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society have every right to post the cartoon on Facebook. It is taken from from a comic book, Jesus and Mo, Volume 2: Transubstantiated, by a pseudonymous British cartoonist called Mohammed Jones (pseudonymous, presumably, out of fear for his life). It depicts Jesus and Muhammad as flatmates who share jokes together over the occasional pint. But UCL’s Student Union suggested it would be ‘prudent’ to remove it.

‘Prudent’ in the sense of averting physical harm or damage to property?

Apparently, there have been complaints (number undisclosed) from students (identities undisclosed). But instead of engaging in open discussion and debate on the limitations of freedom or the consequences of censoriousness (as one might expect in an august seat of learning), the cartoon had to be taken down.

This advice prompted an online petition to ‘Defend freedom of expression at University College London’, which has attracted the support of Richard Dawkins, who also left a comment stating: "Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. They could offend only those actively seeking to be offended – which says it all."

Quite so. It is important to take a firm stand against religious censorship. Indeed, in the context of yesterday's post on our ever-diminishing liberties, it is becoming crucial (quite literally).

107 Comments:

Blogger Sam Vega said...

Actively seeking God; actively seeking enlightenment; and now "actively seeking to be offended".

It is, I'm afraid, the new religion, and this is just the sharp end of it. It has a wider influence across much of our society. It is of course an essentially "secular religion", based as it is upon the pallid psychological satisfactions of a quick squirt of whatever hormone is released whenever we feel ourselves to be offended.

People seeking to be offended will never engage in open debate. It would only expose the weakness of their case. Sometimes, you just have to ignore their complaints and stand your ground. I wish this campaign every success.

13 January 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger author said...

This post is misleading. Yes complaints were made, and the SU advised them to take the image down. But at no point did the ASH society comply. The image remained throughout.

Then in subsequent discussions, the SU backed down, "recognised that mistakes were made" and "said that this will not happen again".

https://www.facebook.com/groups/uclashs/

This is not a caving-in-to-censorship story. It is a standing-up-to-censorship story. A great one!

13 January 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger Sarah said...

I agree with much of this, very strongly, and signed the petition. But I disagree that the cartoon could only offend those seeking to be offended, implying that those who complained, or politely explained how it made them feel, were being contrary or spoiling for a fight.

13 January 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Mrs Author,

You appear to have been mislead by something you thought you read. At no point does His Grace say the ASH Society complied: indeed, he makes it clear that they were *advised* to take the cartoon down. It is indeed a 'standing-up-to-censorship story'. The fact that the SU proffered the 'advice' in the first place gives credence to His Grace's concerns about the impulse to censoriousness.

13 January 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

There are already blasphemy laws in place in Britain and other European countries - they're just not called blasphemy laws, they're called hate-crime laws. Can't say anything about gays, members of ethnic minorities or women. Maybe now that David Cameron has found his inner bulldog he might think about suing Hollywood for its habit of casting white British men as villains, although in fairness, most of them are (oops, call in the hate police! Corrigan, you blasphemer...)

13 January 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Oswin said...

Never mind combating Islam with a few cartoons, ''it would be prudent to remove'' them, the muslims, whilst we are still able to do so.

13 January 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger author said...

Archbishop Cramner, you are right. When I read "the cartoon had to be taken down" I misinterpreted it to mean "the cartoon had to be taken down".

13 January 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Mrs Author,

You are being pedantically obtuse: that phrase is concerned with the overbearing attitude and advice of the SU. When you read 'the cartoon had to be taken down', you misinterpreted it to mean 'the cartoon was taken down.

13 January 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger author said...

It is certainly possible that pedantic obtusity is what blinded me to the intended meaning of your words. It is also possible that you failed to express yourself unambiguously.

While we're at it, Voltaire did not say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

13 January 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Mrs Author,

It is His Grace's pleasure to express himself ambiguously: his legacy is not claimed by both Protestants and Roman Catholics for nothing. And while we're at it, His Grace has never said that Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It is perfectly possible, however, to trawl the internet and find a convenient illustration created by someone who perhaps does.

13 January 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

author; OK, it was his biographer, Hall, who said it but beware;
'It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong' Voltaare.

13 January 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 January 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oswin

Never mind combating Islam with a few cartoons, ''it would be prudent to remove'' them, the muslims, whilst we are still able to do so.

Yes, why let a little thing like 'citizenship' get in the way of a good pogrom. Perhaps there are alternatives to herding people onto cattle cars at gun point. Like (you know) convincing your own Anglo-Saxon stock to get married, stay married, have children (plural, as in 'more than one'), and raise them up in the Christian Faith. They you wouldn't have to be afraid of Muslims who commit the unforgivable crime of having children (plural, as in 'more than one') and teaching them their religion.

carl

13 January 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

carl
You do of course see things from an across the pond perspective but you are right. I have been thinking recently that whilst you can train a child in the way they should go, you can't make them in to Christians. It has to be a personal response to the call of the Holy Spirit. Whereas in Islamic families, children grow up with the 'lifestyle' of Islam and continue in it mostly without question. Even if they are not practising, they will always consider themselves as Muslim, just as I call myself English.
Here is the conundrum, how does one approach the problem of Islamic growth? The Church has the answer but is not functioning as it should in the realm of Evangelism.

13 January 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Couldn’t see little Aiysha in the cartoon. Presumably home in bed, God help her...

WV = ‘arspits’ ! Archbishop, now we definitely know your software is joining in with the comments...

13 January 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“This is my last pint Jesus, I’m off back to the flat. Don’t come back too quickly though, I’ve got a small girl to rape”

13 January 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger Katabasis said...

@author

The society's statement also said this:

"Unfortunately, the Union has considered the possibility that posting the image might have constituted an act of bullying, prejudice, harassment or discrimination. We firmly believe in the protection of our fellow students through University and Union policy; however we cannot accept such a suggestion. They have also considered the force of our actions and unwillingness to concede. As such, the society may be risking a disciplinary hearing which could lead to the forced resignation of committee members, or disaffiliation from the Union. In light of our now constructive relationship with the Union, such an event seems unlikely, though we would ask for your support should it ever occur."

13 January 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger Skin-1-up said...

Thank you for bringing that consultation form to my attention.

13 January 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl: yea, nay or whatever; you raise pertinent points but, I fear it will be our grandchildren, give or take, who will die in the streets and fields of Britain; notwithstanding the 'ifs and buts' of detail.

Just to clarify: I was not advocating a 'final solution' but the halt to further muslim settlement and, to the resettlement, wherever possible, to their original, ethnic homelands.

Failure to do so, will result in eventual carnage.

13 January 2012 at 14:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good show that chap Oswin, time for a bit of British common sense, what !

13 January 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mr Integrity

Here is the conundrum, how does one approach the problem of Islamic growth?

But that's my point. The problem isn't Muslim growth. The problem is Western decline. That decline is rooted in secularism and the inevitable focus on self that is the poisonous fruit of secularism. You can't fix the spiritual vacuum in the West by beating up on Islam. Address the correct question, and the problem of Islam will take care of itself.

carl

13 January 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Mr Integrity, a quiet word in your ear, Sir. Have been keeping an eye on that Carl Jacobs for some time, don’t you know. Comes over as a bit of a rum fellow doesn’t he, all this defeatist rot, not to be trusted. Thought you should know dear chap, but keep it under your hat. Wouldn’t want to arose his suspicions. Besides, MI6 now on the case, keeping him under surveillance – probably a nest of them in Dakota...

13 January 2012 at 15:12  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

carl I was not suggesting that Muslim growth was the problem but that the disparate growth was of concern. I did address the correct problem. Christians need to preach the Gospel and share the light that is in them. I'm not sure how you are using the word 'secularism'. In the US the state is separate from religion. In the UK, both state and the populous have moved away from being associated in any firm way and indeed are more positively opposed to Christianity so as not to offend others, hence the subject of this blog.
Inspector You just can’t trust the yanks can you. Probably CIA or something. Swankey label makes him look auspicious.
Mr. I

13 January 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector I would keep it under my hat but my Grandson is holding it!

13 January 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (12:32)—We beleaguered English are grateful for your frequent pep talks encouraging our womenfolk to embrace fecundity as a national duty. We are, however, concerned that the time you devote to our wellbeing draws you away from averting the demographic disaster facing the White population of your own country. Should you wish to concentrate your efforts stateside, we would quite understand.

13 January 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger Berserker said...

A bit off post but to all the Religioso on this AC site, and to Author what Voltaire certainly did say was:

Tout homme sensé, tout homme de bien, doit avoir la secte chrétienne en horreur.

He was by no means the great white Liberal that people think.

He also said something like: democracy fuels and propagates the uncouth masses.

Here I agree.

13 January 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Thank you for alerting me to these wonderful cartoons!

13 January 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yes, anything that brings the Christian and Muslim communities together has to be a good thing, my arse...

13 January 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger Preacher said...

IMO, the problem in the church is that spiritually most of us are out of condition,overweight & lethargic.
For too long we have become focused on the Western god of materialism, financial rewards & the praise of men.
The gospel is not preached from our pulpits, calling the people to salvation through the Cross & the Blood.
Instead we settle for smoke & mirror tricks entertainment from the band & empty philosophy.

Basically we need to get rid of the flab, read our Bibles, clean house, repent for allowing it to have happened in the first place & beg God for the infilling of His Holy Spirit.
Some call it Revival!.


Blessings Bretheren. Preacher.

13 January 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Katabasis

"Unfortunately, the Union has considered the possibility that posting the image might have constituted an act of bullying, prejudice, harassment or discrimination.

Well, some Christians might possibly be mildly disapproving of the portrayal of Jesus in cartoons (but all would agree that the use of "Christ" as a swear word is far, far more offensive) but I doubt if any Christians would regard the cartoons as "an act of bullying, prejudice, harassment or discrimination."

Although the Union is far too sensitive isn't it nice that they are so concerned about what Christians think? Isn't it a strange coincidence that such concern should manifest itself when Muslims are also involved?

13 January 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Students who form unions should remember one thing, you are there at college to LEARN, not to produce your own etiquette guide, you fresh young pink arseholes !

13 January 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Johnny Rottenborough said...

We beleaguered English are grateful for your frequent pep talks...

Well, I do try to be helpful.

...encouraging our womenfolk...

Not just your womenfolk, of course. I realize that associating sex with reproduction is somewhat old fashioned these days, but there is that little matter of biology. And it's not just a matter of siring children but raising them as well. Which means both mother and father must stick around to carry the responsibility. Aye, there's the rub. That little word 'responsibility.'

...to embrace fecundity as a national duty.

I actually didn't say it was a national duty, did I? I said "If people in Britain are so worried about being overrun with Muslims, then they should stop indulging their selfish desire to spend their time and money on themselves, and produce some children to share it with." However, it won't be too much longer before your Gov't starts talking like it's a national duty. It understands the economic, social, and political implications of birthrates below replacement level quite well.

As for me, I think children are a divine imperative that comes with the privilege of leading a sexual life. If you choose to forego celibacy, then you acquire an obligation to receive and raise children. That is what connects sex, marriage, and children into a single unity. This is of course that natural order of things, and it is that natural order that was overthrown by the sexual revolution. Said revolution sought to disconnect children from sex, and marriage from sex, so that personal gratification might be established as the penultimate purpose of sex. You see where this has gotten us.

Willful childlessness indulges the self at the expense of everyone else. It trades the pleasure of the moment for consequences laid up at some future time - in the unspoken if frank hope that the consequences won't be realized until after one's death. If only a few people so indulge themselves, the civilization can withstand the impact. But when massive numbers of people lay aside the obligation to replace themselves, then the civilization dies.

We are, however, concerned that the time you devote to our wellbeing draws you away from averting the demographic disaster facing the White population of your own country. Should you wish to concentrate your efforts stateside, we would quite understand.

You would be quite foolish to think I haven't. But how did this subject arise? Periodically, people on this weblog start talking about 'removing Muslims from the UK' Why? Because they are afraid of Muslims. Why are they afraid? Because the percentage of Muslims is increasing in the population. Why is the percentage increasing? ... (Cough) ... (Cough).

carl

13 January 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

carl

Quite right and well said. Are you sure your not a *closet* Roman Catholic?

All we need do is get you thinking straight on the Papacy and the small matter of predestination and you'll be welcomed home!

13 January 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I have never rejected outright the idea of unity with Rome. I just have a few pre-conditions.

1. That Rome repudiates the Council of Trent and all its works and all its ways.

2. That Rome lays aside its claim of infallibility for the Magisterium and the Pope.

3. That Rome denounces the Marian dogmas.

4. That Rome denies the divine authority of Sacred Tradition.

Then we can talk. Not such a bad list. Rome doesn't have that far to travel really.

carl

13 January 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

"Oh Mary, mother of God, has you seen what he’s asking for"

13 January 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Good God man, do you want to be burn in Hell?!

13 January 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ps

Best stay in the *closet* carl. I take it your military experience did not include time in the diplomatic corp. Besides, Rome will have to establish the parameters for letting its Prodigals return.

13 January 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (21:55 on 13 January)—Your strategy of a breeding competition to decide the ownership of Britain fails to take into account that her population is already more than twice the sustainable level for a country of her size and topography. The strategy falls at the first hurdle: it is impractical. Perhaps you now begin to understand why ‘people on this weblog’ advocate the removal of Muslims as the only workable method of preventing Britain falling to Islam.

Incidentally, we are not afraid of Muslims. My opposition to Islam arises from observing its effect on those countries unfortunate enough to be under its spell.

14 January 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your strategy of a breeding competition...

What competition? You aren't even replacing yourselves. It's basic math. Unless women in their reproductive years average 2.1 births per woman, the population inevitably declines. You haven't been producing children at replacement rate for two generations. How long do you think that can continue? Only in Star Trek can everyone have one child even as the population doubles.

...to decide the ownership of Britain...

Well, as they say, demographics is destiny. It's basic math after all.

... fails to take into account that her population is already more than twice the sustainable level for a country of her size and topography.

Because of course "sustainable population" is a fixed and immutable characteristic of the land. How many people could Britain sustain before the industrial revolution, I wonder? Perhaps 80,000,000? No, I don't think so either. I also wonder about the source of this curious assertion regarding Britain's sustainability. It sounds suspiciously like one of those noble justifications people tell themselves when they decide not to have children. "I am sacrificing for the land!" Whatever. The marginal impact of one child on the land is not even detectable, and must always be contrasted with the productive capacity of that individual. But the marginal impact of one child upon his parent's pocketbook and leisure time is huge. Somehow they will have to manage to cope with the sacrifice as they cruise the world on the prodigious disposable income they didn't spend on children.

I note in passing that people who think the land is overburdened with people never offer themselves as a willing sacrifice for the sake of the land. Somehow, they seem convinced that their life is so important that it must be sustained no matter the cost. It seems the land is only overburdened by other people.

The strategy falls at the first hurdle: it is impractical.

Sure it is. One of the wealthiest civilizations in the history of man claims that it is too expensive to have kids. And I am supposed to take that seriously?

Perhaps you now begin to understand why ‘people on this weblog’ advocate the removal of Muslims as the only workable method of preventing Britain falling to Islam.

Careful. That sounds suspiciously like fear. You are soon going to claim that you aren't afraid, and yet here you are talking about removing Muslims because its 'the only workable method of preventing Britain falling to Islam.' Anyways, how is Britain going to fall to Islam if the Muslims stop breeding as well? Didn't they get the memo on sustainability? I thought this wasn't about deciding ownership of Britain by a breeding competition, and yet here you seem concerned about exactly that outcome.

Incidentally, we are not afraid of Muslims. My opposition to Islam arises from observing its effect on those countries unfortunate enough to be under its spell.

So you aren't afraid. You have simply observed those countries "unfortunate enough to be under its spell." You have drawn conclusions. I understand. It's not that you are concerned they Islam take over or anything. You're just concerned Britain will "be under its spell." I see. Clearly. And so does everyone else.

carl

14 January 2012 at 06:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I take it your military experience did not include time in the diplomatic corp.

To quote the famous Scotsman:

"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank."

carl

14 January 2012 at 06:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Somehow they will have to manage to cope with the sacrifice as they cruise the world on the prodigious disposable income they didn't spend on children."

Indeed. I'd have more of the stuff too if I wasn't taxed to pay for other people's damned children. :)

14 January 2012 at 08:22  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

If we do not stand our ground,the result will be the experience of malmo,where the indigenous population have had to begin delivering thier own mail,as the religion of peace feels compelled to attack the postman,fireman,policeman,in fact just about any-one who is not as retarded as the "moderate muslim".

14 January 2012 at 08:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector suggests that a falling population is good for the UK. We just don’t need 60 million here. We also don’t need Islam to ‘make up the numbers’. In fact, stop non white immigration completely; which apparently will be disastrous for us, say bearded lefty pseudo economists, but the Inspector will take a chance on that. And gentlemen, the issue is this, the British Way of Life, a fine and noble state of affairs MUST continue. We owe it to the world...

14 January 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger uk Fred said...

Mr. Integrity, and all the others who have concerns over the church's ability in evangelism, you need to look at the Mars Hill Global web site and sign up to obtain the documents outlining "Campaigns". Use and adapt this document to improve your evangelism, and your preaching, without any words having been spoken, will show that there is indeed only One Way, Truth and Life.

14 January 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl @ 21:55:

The basis of my ''fear'' of Islam, if you would have it thus, is because I take them at their 'Koranic' word. They state their intention quite clearly. Why should I disbelieve them?

14 January 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oswin

Why should I disbelieve them?

I didn't say you should. Your observation is quite rational. I just don't understand why you resist calling it fear when it plainly is fear. If it isn't fear, what else should I call it? The writings in the Koran are not particularly relevant until Muslims have the power to impose their will as Muslims. You see the disparity in birthrate. You do not see any way to reverse this disparity because you don't know how to change the attitudes of the non-Muslim majority. You fear the rise of Muslim power. This is all quite rational.

But in effect you are holding Muslims to account for behaving virtuously. What have they done wrong? Form families? Have children? Go thou and do likewise. Except your culture (and mine as well) is busy justifying every sexual proclivity and degeneracy and perversion known to man. It has no time for children and responsibility. There are selves to be indulged. There are various and sundry couplings to be explored. There are new and interesting orgasms to be experienced. It's no wonder there is fear.

carl

14 January 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Do Christians feel they're missing out with all this supposed debauchery going on? Behind their public faces, I mean. I'm pretty sure most people, at least in the UK, are just getting on in life, trying to be happy and fulfilled, and with quite boring sex lives. Even gay people. Only we have better taste in soft furnishings.

14 January 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

carl
Muslims hold a very uncomfortable mirror up to our society. Their Koran is a bastardised version of the Jewish and Christian faith and teaches control and submission to Allah and Islamic clerics. It also teaches deception and violence as acceptable methods of advancement. I don't believe it considers love or forgiveness at all. Starting from a fundamentally different basis, it espouses similar moral precepts to Christian morality. The significant difference is they appear to take their religious observances and morality seriously whilst we abandon ours.

The 'Christian' West has allowed 'liberty' and 'freedom' to undermine its foundations. Maybe we have to do and let people go their own way. However, it meansd we have no cultural defence against Islam other than vain attempts to assimilate and secularise its followers. Failing that, we should consider alternate measures while we can.

We didn't take Hitler's rantings in Mein Kampt seriously. Maybe we should start to take what Muslim extremists and Islamist states say more seriously and act against them whilst we can.

14 January 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Maybe we should start to take what Muslim extremists and Islamist states say more seriously and act against them whilst we can.

The people against whom you wish to act are British citizens. Assume they do nothing illegal. Assume they simply act in accordance with the laws of the UK and advocate for positions consistent with the Koran. Assume they engage the democratic process and elect representatives to Parliament who agree with them. These are all within the democratic rights of a citizen of the UK, correct? What basis then would you have to act against them? What crime have they committed? You can't prosecute people for things you think they might do in the future. You can't imprison them for acting consistent with a religion that you reject. Do you instead seek to make Islam an outlawed religion? Is that your basis? What then of the rights of your citizens?

You have to define what you specifically mean by 'act', Dodo. I think I know what you want. You want British culture to remain rooted in Christianity. But you don't have any coherent moral or legal means to implement that desire in the face of the moral weakness of your own people. There are plenty of immoral ways to implement this desire. I don't believe you want to go there. I think you want to produce a specific end, and you don't want to talk much about the specifics of achieving that end because it would force you to confront what would really be required.

So here I am forcing you. What do you mean when you say that the UK should "act against them whilst we can." Define 'act.'

carl

14 January 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl Jacobs. Except your culture (and mine as well) is busy justifying every sexual proclivity and degeneracy and perversion known to man.

Has anybody else grasped the delicious irony of Carl’s post of 13:56 which included the above, and DanJ0 jumping straight in...

14 January 2012 at 17:06  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

carl

U wasn't suggesting acting against law abiding Muslim citizens. What I said was:

We didn't take Hitler's rantings in Mein Kampt seriously. Maybe we should start to take what Muslim extremists and Islamist states say more seriously and act against them whilst we can."

Instead of being politically correct and trying to avoid upsetting minorities, the state must direct its attention to suppressing extremists - both individuals within their commonwealth and those states who preach 'Holy War'. They represent a real and tangible threat to our way of life. We have the resources - let's use them while we can.

I completely agree that alongside this we should aim to return to living according to Christian values. This is the only way to couneract the 'freedom' to adopt degenerate and self centred lifestyles currently corrupting our society from within.

14 January 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "The people against whom you wish to act are British citizens."

They're not to these people. They're second-class citizens. Not really British. Interlopers. Invaders, even. That sort of thing.

14 January 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (16:41)—The people against whom you wish to act are British citizens

They are British citizens who follow a religion that is inimical to our way of life, and the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries shows what we can expect in a Muslim Britain. As such, we are within our rights to defend ourselves… and we should, while we still can.

The United States defended itself by interring its citizens of Japanese descent during World War II (and Britain her citizens of German descent) with not a thought for their democratic rights; O for such clarity of vision today. You are clearly not enamoured of Britain or her people but I believe the society we have built is worth fighting for, and if we can run Islam out of Europe at the same time so much the better.

@ DanJ0 (19:44)—Is this the end of a beautiful friendship?

14 January 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Rottenborough. Hard luck, you’ve been dumped by text. However, her ladyship ‘has one on her’ tonight (...on another thread...), so it might not be over.

14 January 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "@ DanJ0 (19:44)—Is this the end of a beautiful friendship?"

All I've written is the truth I think, I see it all the time on forums and facebook. Some of the core things of Britishness are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, tolerance, and an evolutionary culture. Yet those things are set aside when it comes to Islam, ironically in the name of Britishness, in anticipation of what might happen. It's philosophically incoherent. As a liberal, it's a terrible dilemma for me that people whose thinking I disagree with might become powerful enough to overturn liberalism. I understand the problem, I just can't stop being a liberal for a while and accept a pogrom until we're back to a less confrontational set of philosophical disagreements.

14 January 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Do please explain how our mutual friend can stick up for Islam when it’s adherents would string him up by his gay neck....

14 January 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Don’t bother. Now see DanJ0’s thoughts. Don’t understand it though. They won’t thank him.

14 January 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's called being true to one's principles. A foreign concept to you, I suppose. No pun intended.

14 January 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (8:01)—Having just had a look at today’s Gingrich thread I think I’ll stay here. I don’t want my clean shirt spattered with blood.

14 January 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. It's called being true to one's principles

...and don’t think our future Islamic Masters won’t be grateful for your principled stand. One would hope your executioners will have tears rolling into their beards as they kick your stool away...

14 January 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (20:12)—Thank goodness we’re still talking. I know of no Muslim country that extends those core values of freedom and tolerance to its citizens. Indonesia perhaps comes the closest, infected as it is by a less virulent strain of Islam. Even so, relations between Muslims and Christians are poor enough to require churches to be guarded by police. So, it isn’t so much a case of ‘what might happen’ as what is almost certain to happen.

Granted, British Islam may undergo a cathartic reformation for the better during this century but, as one who has lived in a Muslim country and experienced the hold Islam has over the people, I’d say the chances are slim. Better to be safe than sorry.

14 January 2012 at 21:00  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl @ 13:56: eh? I'm sorry to say so, but I fear you have now resorted to talking a lot of 'wordy' bollox, and I've now lost all interest...

14 January 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Rottenborough. British Islam may undergo a cathartic reformation for the better

Not while every other baby boy coming off the British Islam production line is called Mohammed...

14 January 2012 at 21:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "Granted, British Islam may undergo a cathartic reformation for the better during this century but, as one who has lived in a Muslim country and experienced the hold Islam has over the people, I’d say the chances are slim. Better to be safe than sorry."

In Morocco, I was regularly being asked to buy alcohol for Muslims. They had back street lockups where it was openly being sold to locals but I think there was still a hit to reputation for people to buy it. In public, people wanted to be seen to be Muslim even if the reality behind closed doors was different. I have to say though, it's not a lot different to the hold the Catholic Church had on people in places like Ireland and Spain and where the residue of that pollution still hangs around.

14 January 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The reality is, I'm sure, that our population will not tolerate a pogrom of our Muslim citizens. When it comes down to it, it's the same sort of numbers games as with politics in general. My hope is that our citizens with Pakistani heritage will lose their cultural attachment to Islam over time. We need to be encouraging that, I think. Not building cattle trucks or creating a pot of 'repatriation' money and making it unpleasant to stay.

14 January 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Taking back our schools from religious organisations is one way of encouraging it. De-Blairing, I'd call it. We need mixed schools with a religion-free ethos.

14 January 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Johnny Rottenborough said...

They are British citizens who follow a religion that is inimical to our way of life

So then does British law have an exception clause for citizens who 'follow a religion that is inimical to our way of life.' Be careful, for there are those who consider Christianity 'inimical to our way of life.' Buy the standard you measure so you will be measured.

The United States defended itself by interring its citizens of Japanese descent during World War II

How did this action 'defend' the United States? Please demonstrate your claim. What threat was averted? What plan was foiled? You are aware, aren't you, that Americans of Japanese ancestry fought for the United States against the Germans, and fought well because they felt the need to prove their loyalty. These are the people from whom the US protected itself.

Perhaps a personal story would help illustrate. My mother was born in 1921. She is of German heritage. Her family spoke German until the First World War. I asked her once "Mom, how was your family treated during the First World War?" She looked at me with surprise, and she just started to cry. I had never seen Mom break down like that. And she was simply reacting to stories she heard from her parents. My Grandfather and Grandmother weren't a threat to the US. They were farmers in Southern Indiana. But many people feared they might be a threat. Without evidence. Without cause. Is that your clarity of vision?

You are clearly not enamoured of Britain or her people but I believe the society we have built is worth fighting for

That's funny. The UK is the only country in Europe I care a damn about. It's the only country in Europe that I think has a right to make claims on the US in terms of supporting a war. It's a country I consider a peer of the US, and not a satellite. You have no idea how ridiculous is this assertion that you have made.

carl

14 January 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector
The tolerance and freedom that comes with Christianity will in time, one prays, release the vast majority of Muslims from the shackles of their religion. We need to become far less accomodating towards the extremists and act against them.

Unfortunately, with this tolerance comes the risk of thistles growing within our society. All of us have to root out the infestation of ungodly ideas and preserve our faith and culture. This means standing against the 'enemy within' and ensuring our children are protected from the 'me' culture and the obsession with 'self'.

14 January 2012 at 23:50  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (23:45 on 14 January)

● If our politicians had not brought Muslims and Islam to Britain, British law would have no need of such an exclusion clause. Now it does.
● The US, being at war, defended itself by interring those whose loyalty could have lain with the enemy.
● If you cared about Britain and her people, you would recognize Britain as our homeland, recognize the wrong done to us by politicians in opening our borders to unassimilable cultures and religions without ever consulting us, sympathize with parents who limit themselves to one child because they cannot afford to raise more, and support our efforts to recreate the decent country of increasingly distant memory. But no. It transpires it is the British who are to blame for not matching the birth rate of a religion that marries young, regards its women as nothing more than breeding machines and practises polygamy. And if the British cannot match the birth rate of that religion, they lose their homeland and smug carl declares it all their fault. With friends like you...

15 January 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

When the Windrush Generation arrived, already thinking they were British and with a Christian background, they were mistreated. It's not just immigrant cultures that can't or won't assimiliate which are treated with suspicion. Whatever happened in the past, we are where we are now. That is, with three generations of people with a Pakistani heritage. The third generation, the 'problem' ones from Kashmir rather than Punjab, would hardly know how to cope in Mirpur. They'd be immigrants there too, and I expect would find it a little too religiously and socially conservative for their liking.

15 January 2012 at 06:47  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Rottenborough- I suspect that Mr. Jacobs, like many Americans, lacks all conception of what it means to be a British indigene.

Even when Americans fall under the "native" (underprivileged) label, they are a deracinated lot devoid of the experience of growing among their own people: a people who have developed and defended their own culture for something approaching 10,000 years. Furthermore, Americans have often inherited sympathies with those who have worked for almost as long... to deprive us of our Home.

None of them will ever experience anything like the connection that binds Britons- heart, soul, and body -to our 'misty isles.' Indeed, many Britons don't realise it themselves, until they experience forces like those presently applied to us. As Enoch Powell paraphrased Kipling: "What do they know of England, who only England know."

I agree with you: it behoves us to remember what we are letting them destroy.

15 January 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blut und Boden, eh, non mouse? You're right. I suspect most Americans don't understand the concept. We're too deracinated. We have much too broad a definition of our 'own people.'

carl

15 January 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ non mouse—I cannot guess what this century holds for these misty isles. I fluctuate daily between optimism and pessimism. At best, this land remains our home. At worst… well, best not said. As you mention one of the greatest Englishmen of the twentieth century, this Wikiquote page attests to the brilliance and incisiveness of his mind.

15 January 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thanks, Mr. Jacobs. I can guess at the German (and will look it up):)

Let me hasten to add that I think what the US has is wonderful, and that it works in the larger space where (nearly) all are immigrants. It's just that forced integration doesn't transplant successfully to a small island possessed of a unique and deeply-rooted heritage. And perhaps it's important to recognise the difference, since Britain is still of key importance in the fight for freedom. I believe that's why they're so intent on our deconstruction.

btw: During the recent Greek/euro crisis I had the opportunity to exchange comments with some ladies in a US supermarket. I complimented a Greek woman in the group: told her that Greeks are once again my heroes- this time in the fight to preserve democracy (against the euSSR). She was happy about that; she believed in the fight!

15 January 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thanks too, Mr. R: like that link; it shows how well Wiki can work!

Yes, I admired Powell back in the '50s ---we used to walk home from school arguing about the 'Rivers of Blood' notion :)

15 January 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

non mouse

I understand your dilemma, and I sympathize with it. But you can't address that dilemma by arbitrarily stripping citizens of their rights without cause or charge simply because you fear what they might do. That is horribly unjust. It will provoke exactly what you most fear. And you would have to look to the 30's for a model of how to accomplish it. Do you really want it said of Britain "How could this happen again?"

carl

15 January 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Jacobs - When did I suggest arbitrary strippings? Though, come to think of it, if they will hiss "racist" at anyone who raises an eyebrow when they receive preferential treatment....

No, seriously: I say you draw a false parallel. These are not Jews, and this is not Germany, let alone in the 1930s. It's a whole different kettle of fish.

Not only are these people ethnically and culturally alien, large numbers of them are not even legal British Subjects: they've been smuggling in themselves, their harems, and their extended families for at least 50 years. The nastiest among them are not small in number either - not if the present state of our cities is anything to go by. They have no intention of ever assimilating into British ways; they demand Sharia Law; and they say they want 'the flag of Islam flying over Downing Street.' That is, they want the British subjugated to them and their desert ways. Actually, they'll turn the place into a desert if we let them (and Jews, as you know, do the opposite).

If you had ever seen these other people parading their flowing gear over our moorlands, you'd know they don't belong. If you'd watched a young Scot struggling to swim in his native river -- while saffron clad aliens strode over the bridge, having pushed the boy in, you'd think again. If you or your children could no longer pass safely through your own cities; if you'd been unable get a taxi in Leeds (basically because you were the only one there with blue eyes); if you'd seen them regularly insulting your returning war-dead, and/or burning your flag; if a group of them had harassed your daughter at a motorway station; if, in an official capacity, they'd insulted you at Immigration (I prefer not to say how) ... you would know that this is an invasion, not a matter of peaceful, bureaucratic euro 'rights' labelled 'citizenship.'

Oh, and did I mention the ones who use the NHS to practice genocide on British patients (witness what happened to at least one of my aunts)? Please note that I relate only one set of personal experiences in these matters; but several million other Britons know exactly what I'm talking about, of that I have no doubt.

How to deal with it? I haven't made any recommendations before...let's see. Maybe those aliens who do mean well would not object to a general checking, registering, and screening? For good measure, perhaps everyone should take an oath of allegiance- to the Queen- before they can draw financial benefits, health service, or participate in the job market? Otherwise, we might be justified in suggesting that, like their friends from the euSSR: they should leave.

And we certainly ought not to let any more of them in. They're already crowding us out at the gunnels.

Oh, and one more thing: I've had several of them tell me that they hate Britain. They hated it before they came here, and they only came because it's a good stepping stone on their way to America. That's where they really want to be. If you're so sympathetic to them, then....

15 January 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You raise some good points mouse. Lay off the Catholics and you have yourself an ally

15 January 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector

Good Lord man, the woman's a raving nutter and you want to align yourself with her?!

If it wasn't immigrants she'd be blaming Catholics or people with blue eyes!

15 January 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Desperate times, desperate measures old chap...

15 January 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector

The enemy of my enemy ....? It's never that bad!

15 January 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Thank you, non mouse.

16 January 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr R'borough and non mouse

This country can be proud of 'patriots' like you. And how novei learning about the situation from the odd converstation with "them" and Greeks in supermarkets. Makes one proud to be British - or is it English? And such a knowledge of the our 10,000(?)year history too!

16 January 2012 at 00:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "And you would have to look to the 30's for a model of how to accomplish it. Do you really want it said of Britain "How could this happen again?""

It won't, short of some sort of revolution. There are plenty of us in the UK who are both vigilant and outspoken.

16 January 2012 at 06:51  
Blogger len said...

The Inspector(5 January 23:26) Why on Earth would anyone want to ally themselves with the Catholics ? Just a short take on their history proves that would be a very bad idea!.

Just a brief' take' on the' despicable duos' posts would confirm exactly what sort of people they are.

How can light and darkness walk together?.

16 January 2012 at 08:05  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 23:36:

You being the arbiter of sanity eh?

non mouse's comments @ 23:16 are insane in what way, exactly? If she is ''raving'' then she's 'raving' in good company - probably that of the majority of the indigenous population of Britain.

Shame on you Dodo; attend to your manners.

16 January 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Danj0

It won't, short of some sort of revolution.

I think that threads like this demonstrate the disconnect that exists between the desired end and the means required to achieve that desired end. That disconnect is willful. People do not make the connections because the do not want to make the connections.

Nonetheless, the connections are there for anyone who will open his eyes. It's as if they think "If only we focus on extremists, then several million people can be removed without conflict or bloodshed." They can't be physically deported. There is no place to receive them, and no infrastructure to get them there. That only leaves one alternative. So I was only trying to get people to make the connection.

Yet your point is well taken - at least for now. The problem is that I think such a revolution is quite probable in the declining West. Don't forget this about the Austrian Corporal. He damn near won. In truth he should have won. It's a miracle he managed to lose that war. That isn't going to be lost on (perhaps not too distant) future generations.

carl

16 January 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Oswin
I used the term 'nutter' loosely, not professionally. Do I really need to plough through the post and point out the narrow minded, ill-informed and fearful premises upon which it is based on? A man of your intelligence can surely see for this yourself? Have a read of carl's earlier posts if you need some help with this.

Yes, there is a genuine issue facing this country about the failure of the 'multi-cultural' experiment and a lack of political leadership. We also have to address the tensions between those who hold to a faith based religion and those who are 'liberal', atheists and secularists.

However, the debate will not be furthered by a simplistic, nationalist fuelled resentment and wild proposals about repression and expulsion.

len said ...
"Why on Earth would anyone want to ally themselves with the Catholics?"

I take it the Holy Spirit inpired you to post that. Or, more like, the weasel in you is smelling an opportunity to attack.

Trying to discredit the one universal Church standing consistently against the individualistic and confused message you preach? The anarchic, make it up as you go along, message that has done so much to fracture the influenece of the Church in the West. The message that has produced some 30,000 protestant churches.

You do know who your serving, don't you?

16 January 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

30,000 protestant churches.

You do realize that the source you are implicitly quoting for this figure found upwards of 1000 RC denominations as well. Don't you?

Protestants divide on these major issues.

1. Justification: Monergism vs Synergism [2 choices]
2. Communion: Spiritual Presence vs Memorial vs Consubstantiation. [3 choices]
3. Baptism: Credo vs Paedo. [2 choices]
4. Spiritual Gifts: Cessationist vs Non-cessationist. [2 Coices]
5. Eschatology: [Premillilenialism vs Amillenialism vs Dispensationalism vs Post MIllenialism] [4 Choices]
6. Ecclesiology: Hierarchical vs Presbyterian vs Congregational [3 Choices]

What have I missed? Assuming that every possible combination was realized you could get upwards of 288. But in fact the high correlation of certain doctrines means the concentrations are not uniform. Certain doctrines cluster. According to doctrine, there are a handful of actual Protestant churches. Look them up in the Yellow Pages if you want a list by type.

Now if you wish to count every independent congregation as its own separate denomination (which is where that count of 30000 comes from) then you can reach the number you suggest. Just remember those independent churches have amazingly uniform doctrine.

carl

16 January 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

carl
Even that short list is rather confusing! And the terms and sub-divisions reflect a divergent and divisive approach to one 'Truth'.

There's the following with all sorts of hybrids in between:

Pietism and Methodism
Evangelicalism
Adventism
Modernism and Liberalism
Pentecostalism
Fundamentalism
Neo-Orthodoxy
New Evanbelism
Paleo-Orthodoxy
Ecumenism

Yes, maybe they do have broad similarities but many follow their own theology. None accept a universal Church authority. Those that have an international organisation, Episcopalians for example, are free to follow their own path. Anglicanism has no international authority. The thirty-nine provinces of the Communion are autonomous, each with their own primate and governing structure. There is no international juridical organisation. All international bodies are consultative and collaborative, and their resolutions are not binding. As "spiritual head" of the Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury only has moral authority.

The doctrines of the various protestant denominations vary widely. Most include the common themes of justification by grace through faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the Bible as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and order. Thereafter, it's a bit of an free for all. Just think of the scope for dissent within thse 'givens'.

As a protestant one can shop around and find a 'Jesus' and a 'message' that suits oneself - or go it alone.

Catholicism is one Church, with one Magisterium, one Cathecism, one sacremental structure and one set of doctrines.

Outside of fidelity to Rome and the authority of the Church, you cannot rightly claim the title Catholic. There are some 23 autonomous Churches and 22 Eastern Churches. However, these accept the paramouncy of the Bishop of Rome. There are no 'traditional', 'modernist' and 'liberal' Catholic Churches as distinct bodies with seperate theologies and structures - there are those individuals, unfortunately, who fail to consistently follow the Church's teachings and this is becoming more acute as secularism and atheism grow in strength.

All the particular Catholic Churches are by definition in full communion with the Church of Rome. In the words of Vatican II:

"It is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."

You're a military man. Think what joy and strenght the Enemy gets from this confusion and division.

16 January 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Yet your point is well taken - at least for now. The problem is that I think such a revolution is quite probable in the declining West. Don't forget this about the Austrian Corporal. He damn near won. In truth he should have won. It's a miracle he managed to lose that war. That isn't going to be lost on (perhaps not too distant) future generations."

I'm simultaneously surprised how resilient society is, and how fragile in some areas too. It's quite possible we'll go into financial meltdown in the UK at some point, with huge losses in the private pension schemes. There may well be civil unrest as a result. I doubt Muslims will be the main scapegoats though. If they were particularly wealthy as a group then perhaps so but they're not. If anything then I think we'll end up a bit like South Africa where the rich have to live behind high walls and not go out at night.

16 January 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Brilliant. Knew this would happen. When the newly installed UK Islamic regime cracks down on Christian activists, we're going to spend our final hours demanding separate gallows for Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and born agains.

But there will be one born again missing. When Srizals was laying down Islamic belief on a recent thread and Albert was battling against him, Len not only stood idly by, but the following texts took place. “Hello Srizals!” and “Hi Len, glad you’re here”. So, you’re a filthy collaborator on top of everything else ! More in common with Islam than the most important and the prime mainstream Christian church, have you ! Well, you might have saved your worthless hide from Islam’s vengeance, but before we disappear, us decent types will drag you into the courtyard and tie you to a post. Quisling !

16 January 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 January 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you, Oswin @ 12:33.

Yes, meconnaissance is a useful technique, especially for deconstructionists. Though, in the present context, whence, whither, or wherefore- I wot not.

However, here I note much of Judgement and Execution. Not only do the-- er--- suspects - impose presumption of guilt on all opposition, they intend summary execution (and, even if these 'Judges' read the evidence, they'll misinterpret it)! Such bathos. Thus are we 'diverted,' from vital matters- by busyness..

Ah well. As the old boys said:

Think, in this batter'd caravanserai
Whose doorways are alternate night and day,
How sultan after sultan with his pomp
Abode his hour or two, and went his way.

They say the lion and the lizard keep
The courts where Jamshyd gloried and drank deep;
And Bahram, that great unter---the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his head, and he lies fast asleep.

(Rubaiyat: OK/Fitzgerald 16, 17).

[Learned the whole thing on a hilltop dubbed "Lindisfarne": in the gap between my RC Convent and my Anglican Grammar School -:) ]

16 January 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Is that it mouse, poetry to see the enemy off. Incidentally, summary execution is the usual punishment for treachery in a wartime situation. As long as it’s alright with you, that is...

16 January 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector

Don't despair, len's opportunistic alliances with all and sundry against Catholicism is a sign of despair.

His is serving his master well but he's a dim witted and foolish fellow and his heresy lacks coherence and substance. One has to feel a degree of sympathy for him and lets pray he sees sense whilst he still has time.

16 January 2012 at 23:12  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

The Rottenborough Declaration 2012 - Amended

"His Majesty's government view with favour the re-establishment in Britain of an exclusive national home for white British people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that everything shall be done that prejudices the civil and religious rights of existing non-indigenous, non-white British communities in Britain and all efforts will be directed at removing said alien communities."

16 January 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger non mouse said...

"And Bahram, that great hunter---the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his head, and he lies fast asleep."
Sigh. Computers.

17 January 2012 at 06:56  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl @ 14:44 :

Thank you, I enjoyed that; most interesting!

non mouse @ 20:39 : hee hee!

17 January 2012 at 16:10  
Blogger len said...

The Inspector and Dodo`s remarks have deteriorated so rapidly that they have descended to what could only be described as ramblings, as they spew forth their accusations at all who would reveal the stark hypocrisy and the inadequacy of their 'religious' pretensions.
Well, their religious masks have now well and truly been cast aside and all who witness this draw back in horror as the beast within is revealed.
All this just proves to me that you cannot re-educate ,reform, or teach the old fallen nature to be 'good'but it must go to the Cross, and a new(re-born) Creation to arise from the ruins.Strangely(or not so strangely) this is exactly the plan of salvation that God Created.

17 January 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Keep it up Len, we’ll have you sectioned yet...

17 January 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector
Now len is seeing the "beast within"!

len
What's actually being revealed is your pomposity and shallowness. Give up trying to drum up support for having us "excommunicated". And do leave off trying to provoke the very abuse you're now whinging about. It's not too subtle.

Oswin
As you enjoyed carl's post @ 14:44, perhaps you'd care to answer my reply @ 16:28 - or not?

17 January 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 20:39:

You might not believe this, but I was impressed by your reply too, and very nearly admitted to it, but felt it might 'muddy the water' a tad. But fair-do's to you; and, I'm now sorry that I did not do so. Fairness in all thing etc.

Oddly enough Dodo old lad, I do oftentimes agree with what you say; it's just that you usually 'go off on one' - way 'beyond the pale', as it were. If only you'd hone those wayward sensibilities of yours!

18 January 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, I wouldn`t dream of getting you and the Inspector 'excommunicated,'you both stand as a testimony to all that is wrong with religion.

18 January 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Oswin
Not so much of the "old lad" - I'm young at heart!

I know, I know, my conduct leaves a lot to be desired. I just get carried away. It's something I'm trying to curb.

Ps
Gon'ttell len though or he'll think I'm a candidate for spiritual rebirth!

18 January 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len
Well stop bleating on and playing the martyr and being so holier than thou! You're also becoming ever so slightly florid in your posts.

Why not pop in the the post above on homosexuality and defend Christian virtue?

Oh no, I forgot, its not your place to criticise others being "ever so 'umble".

18 January 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger Nairb said...

It would be nice if all visitors to this site reacted to the event below by writing to the college and defending freedom of speech. This kind of intimidation is unacceptable in any civilised country.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/01/islamist-stops-university-debate-with-threats-of-violence

19 January 2012 at 22:18  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older