Open Thread

I’m off to the south of France for a couple of days, then onto Annecy. I doubt I’ll be doing a whole lot of blogging, but we’ll see. In the meantime, why not discuss stuff among yourselves? I might even join in.


47 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. I thought the first post was good, the second was no longer unique and the rest were just more of the same.

  2. Oh and Tim is no angel either, we used to continually spar when I first met him on another blog, he was always wrong but he hasn’t realised that yet. We ain’t sycophants either but if you are drinking in his boozer then a modicum of it’s your boozer should apply. If I fisted my sister every time Tim gave me the shiitsbwith one of his posts then her arse would be wider than the channel tunnel. There is a place for what I just said but it ain’t here, and thank fuck I am anonymous and my sister doesn’t read here, otherwise I would not have said that. And I actually didn’t enjoy writing it here either.

    That’s the point Tims out there he has his opioms like them or llump them, but he personally stands by them, credit due there.

  3. Some thoughts I had on a previous thread:

    What do third-gen feminists and Game Artistes have in common?

    My answer: Both have a marxist-tinted worldview.

    I’m not saying they have identical worldviews, or that they are mirror images of each other. Each borrows from different aspects of the Marxist worldview, and stresses different elements.

    3rd-gen fems view the world as a class struggle. Their classes are male and female. Thus every action of a specific man is an expression of The Patriarchy. Every conflict within a marriage has to be viewed in this way. The solution is always in the same vein. Any woman who thinks of resolving the conflict by changing her own behavior is a class traitor, and is treated as such.

    For Gamers, women are all the same. They are controlled by genetic imperatives which they do not understand. They form a class. Their being determines their consciousness. Men also form a class, which is oppressed by the Female class, via the legal system. Many men suffer from False Consciousness. Of course, you can manipulate them if you have a True understanding of History – sorry, if you are red-pilled. The Capitalist will sell you the rope with which you hang him – I mean, even 10s will put out if you’re enough of an Alpha.

    And of course, both sides tap deeply into the root of Marxism – resentment. The Fems for not finding Love, the Gamers for not getting laid.

    Of course, there are considerable differences as well. The greatest difference, in my opinion, is that the Fems opt for bitter passivity, ostensibly waiting for their Class to triumph, but the Gamers for self-destructive individual activity.

  4. Looks like the respectable Secret Barrister has a nasty little attack dog working for him (or her). Aren’t the left just so nice? Gives you so much confidence that when they get even more power they won’t abuse it. Lovely people who are definitely not driven by hate and who would never ever resort to violence.

    (Tim deleted some of the worst abuse directed at me, which most of you wouldn’t have seen. I hope he’s banned the creep.)

  5. That was really quite something, wasn’t it?

    I’m not sure we should attribute that visitation to SecretBarrister malevolent will. The man has a large enough following that it might be expected to contain all sorts of folks. And besides, my impression was that this was an assault looking for an excuse, rather than someone genuinely aggrieved that SB’s wisdom was not accepted uncritically by lesser folks.

    Of course, I may have missed some posts which contained evidence to the contrary.

  6. JL, the goon confirmed that he/she knows who the Secret Barrister is. My suspicion is that it’s a friend, family member or colleague. Or maybe a colleague of the spouse.

  7. @Morris

    I’m sure SecretBarrister is far too well-bred to have anything to do with a potty-mouth knuckle-dragger like HB.


  8. Incidentally, while watching Ezra’s interviews with TR, I couldn’t help but think about that fellow who hanged himself after 2 weeks in jail. He was the one who left bacon outside of a mosque. Not that I approve of that, but the death penalty seems a bit harsh.

  9. Interesting article on Yemen, Bardon. Not a surprise that the Yanks’ ‘enemy of my enemy…” stuff gets them into a muddle. I bet that a few poor US servicemen in Afghanistan have been killed by weapons paid for with US aid to Pakistan.

    You’d have thought with fracking etc they no longer need to suck up to the Saudis.

    The best Middle Eastern policy would be total disengagement. Or perhaps disengagement as long as Israel has the capacity to defend itself. Leave the rest to their own barbaric devices.

  10. @MC

    Disengagement has advantages, but also consequences.

    If the US had disengaged in 1991, then Saddam would have continued to expand his influence at the expense of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. You can say it’s no skin off your nose, but if the Arabian peninsula had disintegrated a la Syria, the effect would have been felt all around the world. The intervention in 1991 gained 11 years of stability, at a relatively low cost. Consider also, that if the US does not intervene, eventually other countries will – as Russia is doing in Syria today. Would it have been in the free world’s interest to have Russia protecting the Saudis for the last 25 years?

    Of course, it does not follow from this that all interventions are good. I’m just trying to say that there are no easy solutions.

  11. Re: the troll: I don’t know the ins and outs, but some people are just mental. Someone who was clearly off their meds went off on me on reddit the other day. Frankly, I’m surprised we don’t see more of it.

    Re: putting bacon outside a mosque: I really don’t see the big deal. Yes, it’s obnoxious, but isn’t all protest? I know we all agree that he shouldn’t have seen jail, let alone been given a de facto death sentence (and I wonder if he actually killed himself, since they covered it up for months). But even people who think that he didn’t cross any legal lines tend to think that he was at least crossing some line. Beyond the inconvenience of picking up the bacon, I’m not sure what the big deal is. (And yes, I know that Muslims don’t eat pork.)

    Re: plastic bags: suppose the public banded together and tried to inconvenience the supermarkets enough to get them to backflip. (And yes, I’m aware that in many places, it’s a gov’t ban, but it’s a gov’t ban that wouldn’t have gone thru without the enthusiastic support of the supermarkets.) I’m talking about refusing to return trolleys to the trolley bays; refusing to return unwanted items to the correct location; insist that the delivery guy brings everything thru to your kitchen instead of leaving it by the door; etc, etc, and anything else that we can think of. Could such a campaign of civil disobedience have enough of an impact on the bottom line that they’d rethink this bag bullshit? (I just came from the supermarket, and I am fuming.)

  12. @ Johnatan

    Well, the rest of the world don,t see “free world”, they see Anglozionist Empire. This is the reason, why there is mess all around the world. Including inside the Empire itself.

    Nobody likes this “freedom”

  13. @ Matthew McConnagay Re: Plastic Bags

    The problem is that (here at lest) the sheeple LOVE the bag ban…

    They’ve been brainwashed to believe that when you unpack your shopping and stuff the bags in the bottom drawer they are magically fast-tracked onto the head of a turtle somewhere…

    Now that the ban is in force here (since July 1st) they (the sheeple) want a ban on the plastic bags you put your fruit ‘n’ veg in and of course drinking straws…

  14. @JL – I might have to give you 1991 but the rest have been a clusterfuck. Altho considering where we ended after the 1991 intervention I might take that back too.

    “Would it have been in the free world’s interest to have Russia protecting the Saudis for the last 25 years?”

    Who can say? But the Yanks shoring them up hasn’t done much good for any of us, except a few arms companies.

    We are where we are, but I’d rather the past few decades had been characterised by zero intervention in and zero immigration from the ME. Western military might would have been be better deployed keeping the ME and its troubles out of Europe.
    I appreciate your argument that it could have been worse, but I sincerely doubt it. Whoever is running things down there will always be a bunch of cunts and also needing to sell oil. So hold the nose and buy what’s needed but otherwise stay out.

  15. Bloke in Cyprus – well said. I lol’d.

    It’s the same round our way, unfortunately. Our state broadcaster has been on a tear about plastics all year.

    Incidentally, I think I may have found out why plastic suddenly became a big issue, as some on this blog have been wondering lately.

    Apparently most of the plastic we were “recycling” was getting sold to China, where it was not dumped in the Yanghtze like you cynics probably expect, but was rather used as raw materials in Chinese factories. (Chinese industry being famous both for its eco-friendliness and its willingness to take it on the chin for the greater good.)

    But starting Jan 1st 2018 China stopped taking it. According to whatever article it was that I read, this caused the value of recycled plastic to plummet from $350 (AUD) a ton to $50. Apparently some places are stockpiling plastic rubbish in the hopes the Chinese will reverse course; elsewise the recycling companies are having to raise their prices, which will of course be passed on to the taxpayer.

    If we’re looking for some big event that might have precipitated a change in policy, this could be it. It’s now suddenly a lot more expensive to recycle plastic, so the gov’t has decided to make sure there’s less plastic to recycle. Apparently nobody has thought we ought to just stop recycling.

    (Well, one council did, but, predictably, they caved.)

    This is actually annoying me because if there’s any country that could make money off of landfill, it’s Australia. There’s quite a lot of useless empty space: we could be the world’s garbage dump. $350 a tonne! That’s not chickenfeed.

    Instead I’m having to scrape together old cardboard boxes like some kind of fucking rag and bone man because these enviro-cunts want to suck their own dicks. Argh!!!!

  16. @MC

    Past few decades – I agree that more harm has been done than good. But I think most of this harm was a result of subsequent errors – not to say idiocy – and was not an inevitable result of the decision to intervene.

    Attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan – I think that was a good idea (otherwise it would have invited a thousand more 9/11s).
    Rebuilding Afghanistan? Fool’s errand.
    Attacking Iraq – not so sure.
    Trying to rebuild Iraq? Pretty sure it was a bad idea.

    To a certain extent these were inevitable, because American Presidents cannot send troops to battle for any length of time unless they convince the American public that there is a moral crusade behind it. In this case it was bringing democracy to Iraq, and letting little Afghani girls learn to read.

    The current immigration crisis? Absolutely nothing to do with interventions in the middle east, and everything to do with European spinelessness. There have been countless wars in the middle east which never sent waves of immigration to Europe, just as none of the European wars of the 20th century sent millions of Sudeten Germans scurrying to Lebanon.


    I’m not sure the entire free world is wearing the same prescription glasses that you are.

    @Matthew McConnagay

    Re: Bacon outside the mosque.

    I think it’s a good idea to seriously consider what this act is, and what it isn’t. Let me pick up where you left off, and carry the ball a bit further.

    Obnoxious – yes, I agree. But we agree that being obnoxious should not be a legal offense, otherwise I’d be putting everyone in jail except me. And you, of course.

    But it’s also a little more than just being obnoxious (which is not the same as warranting jail time). Simply obnoxious would be someone spray-painting “Dudes, just go to the beach” on the mosque. There’s a bit more here.

    It is also a deliberate act of humiliation, playing upon religious sensibilities. Its purpose is to force the muslims who attend the mosque to break a religious law which is important to them. Imagine, say, a buxom young lady pulling up her shirt and waggling her charms in the face of a Benedictine Monk. You could argue that it’s no inconvenience to walk out of his way while averting his eyes – it’s just the same as walking over to a cross the street at a crosswalk with the sun shining in your eyes. But there’s a bit more to it than that, and to ignore it is wrong.

    There is also a certain degree of implicit threat involved. It’s vague, it’s incohate, it’s not imminent. Consider, if you will, the firebomb-laden kites floating into Israel across the Gaza border. Many of them have swastikas drawn on them. What is the purpose of that? To humiliate, and to express hatred. The pig’s head is the same (minus the firebomb, of course). You’d want the police to investigate, to know for a fact that there isn’t some underground group which is conspiring. But if it’s just one man acting on his own, it’s no more palpable than if he had started shouting “Go f***ing die” at a group in the street. It’s not a threat in the sense of expressing a desire to execute an illegal action which is within his power.

    At this point, if we agree on this breakdown, we should ask a few questions:

    Is it morally wrong? Yes, I think we can agree on that.
    Is it qualitatively worse than other crimes? I think the answer has to be a very qualified ‘yes’. It’s worse than emptying your rubbish bin in the middle of the street. It’s not worse than breaking and entering.

    Should the law intervene, and if so, how?
    You could fine the man for littering, and give him a greater fine than you would for dropping a goat’s head in the middle of the street.
    Should you create a new category of crime for this? That’s what they’ve done, isn’t it. It’s a Hate Crime. The problem with that is that it’s an endlessly flexible definition. A lot of people express hatred whenever they talk about their mother-in-law. Should we chuck them all in jail? Of course not, it’s only for protected groups. Who defines protected groups? It doesn’t really matter – within ten years everyone will have found some protected group to which they belong, just like the ancient Aztecs worked all year to own a slave in case they should be selected for human sacrifice.

    So my answer would be – it’s morally wrong, and it is more vile than it would have been without the religious component. It’s wrong to make a legal category to suppress it, not because it’s not bad enough, but because the consequences of such a category would be much worse. Better to deter it within the existing legal framework, as you would arrest the female monk-flasher for indecent exposure. If a man came up to me and said, “Hitler should have killed you all”, I would be sorely tempted to have him hauled off to jail, if I had that power. That does not mean it would be wise. Of course, if there was an underground organization, that would be different, but there are laws to handle sedition.

    However, there’s another reason which is hiding behind the curtains, which no-one dares mention. It’s the fear that such acts, if repeated often enough, will cause an outbreak of rioting, and once that genie’s out of the bottle, no-one can put it back. The reasoning is, that putting a pig’s head outside a mosque is like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. We all know what will happen. We mustn’t let it happen. So off to jail you go. You should have known better. Of course, no-one can say this aloud. If ‘the muslims will riot’ is so obvious that a man can be jailed for provoking it, then it’s equally obvious that we should not allow unlimited immigration from those countries. Can’t say that, though.

    Okay, this was much shorter when it was still in my head. Sorry for the wall of text.

  17. Mr. Levy –

    Sorry for the wall of text.

    No worries, I’ve got time.

    I’m flattered not to be thought of as obnoxious, although you should be aware that you’re quite wrong on that point.

    I agree with most of what you said, and I think we’re in agreement about hate crime laws, i.e., they should be abolished. Some small points of disagreement:

    Firstly, was it slices of bacon they left outside the mosque, or a pig’s head? The latter seems much more menacing than the former.

    Secondly, the example of firebombs with swastikas painted on them is a poor one. I understand you’re not considering the firebomb as part of the equation, but there is surely a big difference between bacon and a swastika. Pigs didn’t kill six million Muslims.

    Thirdly, I don’t agree that there is necessarily an implicit threat in the bacon. I think that’s very much in the eye of the beholder, and I can see how one could take any protest or vandalism as a threat.

    Let me put that another way: is there much more threat in bacon outside a mosque than bacon outside a church? Sure, there’s no Christian imprecation against pork, but then, someone still went to the trouble to dump bacon on the church steps. Clearly there is an animus of some sort at work.

    I think the big point I want to make is the one you almost made yourself, but unfortunately got wrong. I’ll quote you a little bit:

    Imagine, say, a buxom young lady pulling up her shirt and waggling her charms in the face of a Benedictine Monk..

    You don’t really need to imagine it (although I wouldn’t blame you if you did). While I suppose it would be difficult to find this exact scenario repeated in real life, there are probably enough similar ones to make the point. Although my research skills ain’t up to much, but let’s see what I can find…

    Okay, Teen sentenced for St Magnus Cathedral vandalism: this lad got 10 months, backdated to November. He was apparently free enough to commit some other crime in April. Here’s a more detailed report on his church vandalism, for comparison’s sake. Like I said, difficult to find an apples-to-apples case. Frankly, I’m not sure that most church vandalisms make the news.

    Let’s move into the speculative. Suppose the path of the gay pride parade went past a church, and the church objected. That would be most hateful of them, all agree. But suppose the parade was due to go past a mosque… well, the organisers wouldn’t even make that mistake, would they? Because the shoe would be on the other foot if they did.

    There are other ways to offend the sexual sensibilities of Christians. I just checked on amazon, and while you can find lots of “sexy nun” costumes, there are for some reason no “sexy burqas”.

    Or, let’s imagine that somebody put condoms on the steps of a Catholic church – incidentally, somebody just vandalised Jacob Rees-Mogg’s house in just this fashion, so we’ll have to wait and see – on the one hand he’s Catholic (boooo!) but on the other hand, he’s a politician, so will the establishment close ranks around him?

    Anyway, condoms on a church. Reckon you’d get 12 months for that?

    I’m not opposed to throwing people in the chokey for vandalism, so in that sense even the bacon mosque guy deserves a custodial sentence. But we both know that if he was the condom church guy he’d most likely never have seen the inside of a cell, if the police had bothered to arrest him at all.

    I am drifting off topic, because I think we agree that it was a politically-motivated sentence: the point is, bacon on a mosque is about morally equivalent to condoms on a church, or bacon on a church for that matter, and should in both cases be treated as the petty vandalism that it is. Vandalism is bad; vandalism that violates arcane religious precepts into the bargain isn’t any worse. I don’t think you can dispute that point and remain opposed to hate crime laws.

    I don’t think I’ve made my point very well but what the hell.

  18. @Jonathan Levy,

    I’ll reply in a much more taciturn manner, mainly because phone not laptop ;).

    “Hate crime” and “hate speech” are far too broad terms for my sensibilities. They provide the equivalent of a blank cheque to whomever has the power to make the judgement.

    As a thought experiment, imagine if one of the more extreme commentators on Twitter or elsewhere had that power, on the left or right.

    How comfortable does that make you feel about our future freedom?

  19. @MC- “Not a surprise that the Yanks’ ‘enemy of my enemy…” stuff gets them into a muddle”

    But why expose it after all this time and why now is the question.

    Is it related to the Canadian – Saudi tussle, the Saudi Prince MbS has been keeping an unusually low profile of late. The Saudi led Qatari embargo in Qatar is still very much in place and quite a serious matter, lets just see what pans out but there would have been a definite reason for that press release.

  20. …did my extremely long-winded, took-bloody-ages-to-write reply to Mr. Levy disappear somehow?

  21. @JL – re your last but one paragraph – that is the heinous state we are in. Non-Muslim Britons must have their freedom curtailed because a substantial proportion of the Muslim population cannot be trusted with freedom*. Give ’em an inch and they’ll rape your kids, fiddle your elections and dodge your taxes.

    I would prefer ‘bacon incidents’ to be dealt with as they might have been if a loon crapped in a church font in the 1950s; societally disapproved of but no reason for a man to be imprisoned (never mind his subsequent death).

    If that sent the proportion of the population which does not like Western Civilisation into meltdown, all to the good. It might show politicians and the wider population what we’re dealing with.

    *of course not all Muslims. And of course many ‘Muslims’ would like nothing better than to be not recognised as such and to be able to treat religion as if they were C of E. Equally they’d like to leave the more backward practices of their or their antecedents country of origin behind.

  22. Dirong the Troubles we used to keep the factions apart in prison and I belive the US government does with rival gangs. There is no reason to send hate criminals to prisons with large Muslim populations other than to willfully endanger them.

  23. Did you include the words Nick Cummins in your reply?

    …no? Am I missing some joke?

    Oh wait, that troll? Nah

  24. @William of Ockham

    I think I’m in agreement with you. Perhaps the extreme brevity of my post caused some confusion 🙂

    @Matthew McConnagay
    My condolences 🙁


    I would prefer ‘bacon incidents’ to be dealt with as they might have been if a loon crapped in a church font in the 1950s; societally disapproved of but no reason for a man to be imprisoned

    I’m of two minds about this, to be honest. I’m trying to figure out why

    On the one hand, I would like to live in a world where your solution is not implemented, but actually works. ‘Works’ in the sense that the expressed societal disapproval is sufficient to mollify the hurt feelings of the muslims – possibly because the mayor comes to wash away the pig’s blood with his own hands, and the local bishop dumps the remains in the garbage. And of course the local muslim community issues a fatwa against any muslim taking revenge in any way. And the local muslim community does not become more and more sensitive to insults, to the point where no-one feels safe saying anything at all about Islam. It all sounds quite lovely.

    I’m pretty sure it would have worked 50 years ago. I don’t think for a minute it would work today. Why? In 1950 you had a sense of community. Pooping in the altar was an offense against everyone. Now you have a divided community. Even in the best case, extraordinary gestures are necessary to patch over that divide. And when, in fact, the Islam in the mosque is supremacist, hostile, and used to avenging insults with blood, it’s a fool’s errand.

    So what’s on the other hand?

    In 2005, in Israel, a couple tossed a pig’s head into a mosque in Jaffa. The man was given 9 months in jail, the woman 2.
    Here’s a link for the details:

    Now, I ask myself – was that a reasonable punishment? I’m a lot more inclined to say ‘yes’ in this case. Why?

    Well, here there is no pretense of a united community. Arabs and Jews live parallel lives, and get along together reasonably well when they meet in the market or the garage. They live in separate towns or neighborhoods, and there’s very little intermarriage or conversions. There’s no expectation that the Arabs have to adopt a western attitude towards criticism, or that they have to learn to live as part of a community of westerners. Trying to accomplish that seems like a fool’s errand. On the other hand, there’s no great urgency, because there is no large flow of Arab immigrants, and they’re not streaming into Jewish communities.

    So the expectation of Arab violence if a pig’s head is tossed into a mosque is not a huge step back, nor a reversion to a primitive religious strife of 200 years ago, nor a huge loss of civil liberties within our community. It’s more a question of foreign relations. And there isn’t a deadly sense of submission, of open-ended passivity in the face of increasing Arab demands. Not in Israel, anyway. There’s no fear that not taking a principled stand on pigs-head-tossing will lead to Jews being beaten for walking past a mosque in an insufficiently deferential manner, or who knows what.

    There’s no question, I think, that the situation of England in 1950 is prefereable to Israel in 2018. The question is, where does Britain in 2018 stand on this continuum, and which policy will move her in which direction.

    @ Matthew McConnagay

    Oh hey, your wall of text has suddenly appeared, but I’m already done answering MC!

    Oh, what the hell.

    Re: Swastika kites vs. pig’s head. I see your point. Finding exact analogues is difficult.

    I think there’s a difference between condoms-on-a-church and pork-on-a-mosque. I’m not saying it’s grounds for treating it differently in the legal sense, but I think there is a difference. I would interpret condoms-on-a-church as a vulgar criticism of one tenent of Christianity, and bacon-on-a-church as a condemnation of Islam and a rejection of Muslims. The reason is that the first action is a Christian criticising Christianity in a particularly vulgar way, and the second is a Christian rejecting the presence of Islam in his community. I think most people would interpret it this way. I think we need a better equivalent than condoms-on-a-church. I would say, turning a crucifix upside down, or backwards, or something like that.

    The question is, should the law treat these cases differently? The theoretical answer is, of course, ‘absolutely not’. And in a cohesive society – even if it included Muslims and Christians – that could be done. But in a fragmented society, it is necessary to keep the peace bewteen the various camps by deterring such provocations. So it’s very easy to find reasons to acquit the silly boy who tossed a condom on a church door, but to be quite severe with the nasty racist knuckle-dragger who tossed a piece of bacon on the mosque.

    Irrespective of that, you make quite good points about the unequal enforcement between parallel actions between the camps. As in, the muslim who reverses a crucifix will not even get a slap on the wrist, whereas the christian who tosses bacon… well, we know what happened to him. This is precisely what you called it – politically motivated sentencing.

  25. @Johnathan Levy

    You’re describing what De Tocqueville called the “tyranny of the masses”.

    I wrote about it at my place recently but I wouldn’t be so gauche as to self promote further than that.

  26. Regarding stepping away from the middle east.

    Let the Russians move in. Firstly, they’ll be no more successful than the US and will make even more enemies. Secondly trying to hold an empire bankrupted them last attempt, and will do so again.

    The Chinese won’t move in. They only want a commercial empire and don’t like political trouble. They also really don’t like Islam.

  27. US defence is in an invidious position. For small conflicts deterrence doesn’t work. Meanwhile long standing doctrine is that US has ability to fight from both coasts.

    A secondary aim of ME intervention was to send a deterrent message. But the deeper US was sucked in, the less the message was heard.

    Now we have a rival in China trying to confiscate a whole sea and its resources by concreting over coral islets, against the interests of US allies. And they try to ban US from these waters.

    What happens if US agrees to withdraw warships from S China sea? Commercial freight goes the long way round, adding cost and pollution, US loses allies in the region.

    No doubt Philippines also regrets closing Subic Bay. But we are where we are, with few options apart from trying to look as if we are standing firm.

  28. Excellent comments above everyone. Thanks.

    The point of these bacon incidents and drawing Mohammed is to gradually desensitize the Muslim community so that they won’t go ballistic at every slight. I don’t like it much, but I don’t know any other way. These kinds of acts are peer pressure on steroids. Cultures have a way of enforcing their norms on the noncompliant. The norm in question here is assimilation and social conformance. This kind of thing happens every day; kids on the playground, dudes in a factory, girls in a sorority, soldiers in the military. It can be ugly and wrong, but it’s nature’s way of bringing equilibrium into the system. Okay everyone, tear my point apart if you wish. I haven’t intended to fill every hole in the theory, but I think it is a useful one.

  29. @ Howard Roark

    The problem is that the muslims have learnt that violence works – hence you don’t see many mohammed cartoons in the MSM these days.

    And the authorities know that the muslims know that violence works. Hence the unequal enforcement.

    You could shit on a pile of bibles a mile high and the response would be, “hate crime, what hate crime?” because Christians wouldn’t really be that bothered…

    But if you pissed on a single copy of the quran and posted it on YouTube you’ll be rushed off to jail – possibly for the rest of your life – for hate crime.

    Hence there are few willing to throw bacon or draw mohammed and desensitise the mussies – and who can blame them?

  30. Bloke in Cyprus –

    You could shit on a pile of bibles a mile high and the response would be, “hate crime, what hate crime?” because Christians wouldn’t really be that bothered…

    To be fair, it was only twenty years ago that Christians got “Jerry Springer: the Opera” banned. Although I only ever heard Stewart Lee’s side of that one, so maybe I don’t have the full story.

    Jonathan Levy –

    The reason is that the first action is a Christian criticising Christianity in a particularly vulgar way, and the second is a Christian rejecting the presence of Islam in his community.

    I don’t see how you’re making that determination. For starters, who’s to say the vandals in either case are Christians; secondly, how can we tell from the mere presence of bacon that the vandals aren’t merely criticising Islamic dietary practice, or encouraging assimilation (as Howard Roark suggests), rather than trying to encourage Muslims to leave?

    (I am talking hypothetically rather than about the specific cases we’ve mentioned.)

    I think to maintain a moral difference between the two is to leave the door open to hate crime laws and the current “preferred victim” system.

    This question might be out of line, but what the hell, I’m semi-anonymous. You’re Jewish, right? Are you worried that if we tolerate bacon on mosques, bacon on synagogues will be next? Do you think that’s affecting your feelings on the matter? Put another way, imagine if the vandals had broken an Islamic edict but not a Jewish one: let’s say they poured alcohol on the mosque’s door handles. Do you wonder if you’d feel differently?

  31. “It is also a deliberate act of humiliation, playing upon religious sensibilities. Its purpose is to force the muslims who attend the mosque to break a religious law which is important to them.”

    So I assume you would agree with a jail sentence for the people who put condoms on a cross on Jacob Ress-Moggs lawn, and a dildo on his cars bonnet? (Plus lots of other vandalism too) Condoms to a staunch Catholic presumably being just as anathema as bacon to Muslim. Or are are white followers of religions not afforded the same sensibilities as brown ones?

  32. On a different topic, anyone else seen this bit of interesting info: 29% of black voters now have a positive opinion of Trump, up from 15% last year:

    Given Trump got 8% of the black vote at the election (the highest by a Republican presidential candidate for decades), it won’t take much of a swing among black voters to make Donald’s re-election in 2020 a shoo-in.

  33. It used to be generally accepted that the law would only intervene over what someone did, not over what he thought or was.

    “Hate Crime” blurs this distinction between BE and DO, to all our loss.

  34. The idea that Moslems can really be so offended by bacon and/or alcohol that placing either outside a mosque is worthy of a prison sentence is laughable. I know that many Muslims like bacon (who doesn’t?) and drink alcohol, although they don’t advertise it to their co-religionists (unless their having a bacon sarnie and alcohol party with them).

  35. @JL: “such acts, if repeated often enough, will cause an outbreak of rioting, and once that genie’s out of the bottle, no-one can put it back.”

    Virtually all of our efforts, from handing out dole money to the feckless, up to the lofty heights of promoting Pride/Islam/Feminism is aimed at us not having a riot. Which is why I call benefits ‘riot control money’

    @KevinS: My wife used to teach, among others, muslims. One day a muslim girl came to her in tears. “I love bacon flavoured crisps,” she blubbered. “I am worried my faith will find out and I will be judged unclean.”

    Happily, my wife was able to assure the sad muslim girl that her favourite foodstuff was nothing more than fried slivers of potato spiced with assorted chemicals. No pig had been anywhere near the Walkers factory.

  36. Accident my arse more like a bitch slap, 10 years since Georgia, its all jolly spiffing.

    “NATO Typhoon fighter jet accidentally launches missile near Russian border

    A SPANISH fighter jet has accidentally fired an air-to-air missile in Estonian airspace near the Russian border.The NATO Eurofighter Typhoon 2000 launched the missile in error near the town of Otepää in southern Estonia at 3.44pm today.

    Estonia’s Defence Forces (EDF) said the stray AMRAAM type missile should have a self-destruct mode that causes it to explode mid-air in the event of an accidental launch.

    However, the EDF said the 3.7 metres (12.1 feet) long missile may have hit the ground.

    The fate and location of the missile missile is not known.”

  37. So that got me on to this absolute gem, it’s enough to make your eat your tie.

    By Mark Ames

    But listening to Colonel Konashenko, it becomes clear to me that I’m looking at more than just the smoldering remains of battle in an obscure regional war: This spot is ground zero for an epic historical shift. The dead tanks are American-upgraded, as are the spent 40mm grenade shells that one spetznaz soldier shows me. The bloated bodies on the ground are American-trained Georgian soldiers who have been stripped of their American-issue uniforms. And yet, there is no American cavalry on the way. For years now, everyone from Pat Buchanan to hybrid-powered hippies have been warning that America would suddenly find itself on a historical downslope from having been too reckless, too profligate, and too arrogant as an unopposed superpower. Even decent patriotic folk were starting to worry that America was suffering from a classic case of Celebrity Personality Disorder, becoming a nation of Tom Cruise party-dicks dancing in our socks over every corner and every culture in the world, lip-synching about freedom as we plunged headfirst into as much risky business as we could mismanage. And now, bleeding money from endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re a sick giant hooked on ever-pricier doses of oil paid for with a currency few people want anymore. In the history books of the future, I would wager that this very spot in Tskhinvali will be remembered as both the geographic highwater mark of the American empire, and the place where it all started to fall apart.

  38. I don’t see how you’re making that determination.

    I’m not saying I have evidence which will stand up in the court of law.
    I’m saying this is how everyone will interpret it.
    I’m sure you’ll find some who genuinely won’t, but they’re too few to matter.

    If you genuinely disagree, I’m not sure how to convince you of this.

    I think to maintain a moral difference between the two is to leave the door open to hate crime laws and the current “preferred victim” system.

    I agree. This is one of the heavy prices which multiculturalism is exacting from Britain.

    This question might be out of line

    It’s not out of line. I think that tolerating (legally, not morally) bacon on mosques would be the right choice when you had little immigration and could expect successful assimilation. If it resulted in bacon on synagogues, that would be unfortunate, but much better than an official system of thought-crimes. It is the difficult, but correct choice to make under these circumstances, and following this path will help reach successful assimilation within a few generations. In fact, you could say that this is what happened at the turn of the 19th century, when Jewish immigrants from Poland arrived in Britain in considerable numbers, and assimilated successfully within two generations.

    I think that tolerating (legally, not morally) bacon on mosques when you have unlimited muslim immigration and no expectation of assimilation may be the morally correct choice, but it will trigger intercommunal violence in the short term, and will achieve nothing in the long term. Should you do it anyway? To be honest, I don’t know. When I think of Britain, the answer is ‘yes’, on general principles. When I think of Israel, I ask, is this worth another intifada? I can criticize Islam all I like amongst Jews, I wouldn’t do it out of politeness in front of Muslims, and the question simply does not exist in the public sphere. You never have anyone on TV claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, there’s no controversial policy of encouraging Muslim immigration, they’re not converting my sons or moving into my neighborhood or grooming my nieces. There is the small matter of suicide bombers and missiles, but that’s a political question, not a religious one. I am willing to bend here, because it will save lives, and I don’t think it’s a slippery slope. I would try to deter it within the scope of existing laws. I would not create a category of ‘hate crime’. But rather than break my head over this difficult case, I would stop the unlimited immigration and change those policies which discourage assimilation. Then the choice becomes easy – put up with the occasional strip of bacon, or re-emigrate to a Muslim country.

    I’m thinking this through as I write, and weighing all the interesting opinions and examples people have posted. I’m very much enjoying trying to think this through. I don’t think for a moment that I’ve got a list of blue-ticked answers.

    So I assume you would agree with a jail sentence for the people who put condoms on a cross

    No. I have endeavored to describe all that is morally wrong about bacon-on-mosque. But ‘morally wrong’ should not mean ‘illegal’. The law is not a tool to enforce polite behavior.
    Calling a mentally-deficient girl a stupid cunt is morally wrong, but should not be illegal.
    Putting condoms on a cross is morally wrong, but should not be illegal.

    Conversely, just because an action should not be made illegal, does not mean we should be coy about describing the nature of its wickedness. Putting bacon on a mosque is intended to humiliate the muslims who worship there, just as (in Sharia) forcing Churches to be lower than any nearby Mosque is intended to humiliate the dhimmis, and we shouldn’t mince words about it. Let us call a spade a spade, and then try to think clearly about what is proper for the law to forbid and what is not.


    Which is why I call benefits ‘riot control money’

    Or ‘Jizya’, freely translated.

    @Howard Roark

    The point of these bacon incidents and drawing Mohammed is to gradually desensitize the Muslim community so that they won’t go ballistic at every slight.

    That’s never going to work. That’s like desensitizing cats to meat by feeding them mice.
    Each outbreak of violence will be interpreted as preserving the honor of the group. The ringleaders will gain in stature. Other men in the community will imitate then. Neighboring communities will feel shamed that they have responded more moderately, and will seek to outdo them.

    Consider Saudi Arabia. For ten years, American armed forces sat in the Arabian peninsula, protecting Saudi Arabia from Saddam and Iran. Did that desensitize them? We got the answer to that on 9/11. For 20 years, Jews and Arabs mixed freely in Israel and the West bank, from 67 to 87. The result was the first Intifada. The Tube bombers were born in Britain. They also had 20 years of desensitization when they pulled the trigger. They go ballistic at every slight because that’s the culturally required response in the middle east. You can’t change that without changing their culture.

Comments are closed.