They'll never let me into England again. Sod them.

A few years ago, I wrote a posting called "Paranoia Strikes Deep" in which I imagined being detained by Muslim customs and immigration officials on arrival in London because of politically incorrect offenses committed on this blog.

I can't remember now if the post was meant seriously or humorously -- probably some of both. It's no joking matter now, though ... or rather, it is a no-joking matter. The uniformed cultural Marxist goons actually stopped a man from boarding his plane the other day because he -- God help the poor man! -- made a mild joke about (according to the Telegraph) "why a veiled woman was not checked by security." He says he didn't even use the word Muslim, but that didn't keep him out of hot water. And he was an Englishman, a solid citizen, not some kind of yob -- although I'm for Yob Rights when it comes to free speech. If that's what the Muslim concentration camp guards do to a subject of their queen, think what their reaction would be to a Yank who thoughtlessly "offended" them.

As his daughters, who had passed through security, waited in the departure lounge wondering where he was, he was subjected to a one hour stand-off as officials tried to force him to apologise.

Mr Jones, 67, who is the creator of the popular children’s character Fireman Sam, said: “Something like George Orwell’s 1984 now seems to have arrived in Gatwick airport." ... He said that when he made his initial remark the security guard had appeared to agree with him, saying: “I know what you mean, but we have our rules, and you aren’t allowed to say that.”

As he went through the metal detecting arch, his artificial hip set off the alarm, prompting a full search from a guard. It was after this, and as he prepared to rejoin his two grown-up daughters, that he was confronted by another guard who said he was being detained because he had made an offensive remark.

“I repeated to her what I had said and told her that I had said nothing racist,” he said. “She took my passport and boarding pass and I was then escorted back through the security zone into the outer area. Here the female security guard proceeded to question me further, inferring many things that I had not said.

“It was impossible to get her to listen to reason. We were then joined by a second female security guard who stated that she was Muslim and was deeply distressed by my comment. “I again stated that I had not made a racist remark but purely an observation that we were in a maximum security situation being searched thoroughly whilst a woman with her face covered walked through. I made no reference to race or religion. I did not swear or raise my voice.”

It's unlikely that he did -- no well-bred Englishman of his generation would. But Mr. Jones was being a little shifty in his self-defense. The joke or comment was obviously about different standards of security clearance applied to Muslims, and the favoritism generally shown to Muslims in British officialdom these days. The concentration camp/security guards got his point.

He continued: “I had now been detained for some time and my daughters were worried, calling me on my phone asking what was happening. We were going around in circles. I maintained that I had said nothing offensive and the security guard was continuing to accuse me. This had taken about 15-20 minutes and looked as though it was not going to be resolved.

“I asked the security guard if she was going to charge me to which she said no but I could not leave until I had apologised to the Muslim guard.

“At this point I asked for the attendance of a police officer. After some time he arrived but it was also plainly evident that he was keeping to the politically correct code. I told him that if there was a case then he should arrest me.

“I was told that we now live in a different time and some things are not to be said. They decided again that I would only be allowed to continue on my journey if I were to apologise to the Muslim guard. My reply was that as I had not made a racist remark it would be impossible for me to apologise.”

By any sane definition, it was not a racist remark, but the racism category has been expanded to include anything that someone other than a white person doesn't like. What David Jones actually wanted to do, it appears, is protest against a system which discriminated against him and his race. But that is the crime that will bring back hanging in the U.K. So all he had left to him was making a pathetic joke, and later claiming that he meant nothing by it. He was forced to resort to a weaselstrike, protesting his innocence of offending Muslim sensibilities.

Eventually, Mr Jones said, the BA manager suggested that he should agree that what he had said “could” be considered offensive by a Muslim guard.

With his flight departure time now fast approaching Mr Jones agreed to the compromise. Escorted by the police officer, he was taken through security where he was again subjected to a full search after his hip replacement set off the metal detector alarms.

There was a time, not so long ago, when public servants were expected to serve the public. Sometimes that meant having to employ common sense and restraint, even accept the odd insult. It came with the territory. Not no more, friend. Today you have to assume anyone with a uniform and an ethnic tenderness has the state's permission to humiliate you, demand you apologize to them, arrest you, perhaps make you wish you'd skipped being born.

This post, and so many others I've written at this site, "could" be considered offensive by a Muslim guard. While Reflecting Light is hardly a politically important source of comment, these days you don't have to actually be singled out for scrutiny. Her majesty's security state apparatus (like ours) doubtless has computers with Google-like spiders crawling over the Web looking for words and combinations of words that are perceived as threatening.

So it truly would not surprise me if I showed up at Heathrow and was scrutinized more thoroughly than Mr. Jones, placed in a cell and put on the next plane back. No thanks. Even if they ultimately granted me admittance to their ethnic garrison state, I would not spend my travel money, if I ever have any again, indirectly supporting a once-free country that has bent its former liberties for a Muslim über-class.

U.K.'s "ethnic cleansing" of the English language

Councils ban 'elitist' and 'discriminatory' Latin phrases
— Daily Telegraph, Nov. 3

Local authorities have ordered employees to stop using the words and phrases on documents and when communicating with members of the public and to rely on wordier alternatives instead. The ban has infuriated classical scholars who say it is diluting the world's richest language and is the "linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing".

Bournemouth Council, which has the Latin motto Pulchritudo et Salubritas, meaning beauty and health, has listed 19 terms it no longer considers acceptable for use. This includes bona fide, eg (exempli gratia), prima facie, ad lib or ad libitum, etc or et cetera, ie or id est, inter alia, NB or nota bene, per, per se, pro rata, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, vice versa and even via. …

In instructions to staff, the council said: "Not everyone knows Latin. Many readers do not have English as their first language so using Latin can be particularly difficult."

H.M.M. Ministry for Lingustic Reform

Equality House, 33 Swithin's (formerly St Swithin's) Lane

Londonistan 1OH 2MY

22 May 2018

To all government officials:

Since you now represent 83.5 per cent of employed Britons, it is incumbent upon you to set an example for that portion of the public that continues to write in English.

Although Latin phrases have been prohibited since Jan. 1 in the second year of the Charles Caliphate, the English language remains riddled with words derived from Latin and even Greek. Although such words might appear on the surface to be innocent, they project an unwholesome attitude of historicism and imperialism, many having been widely used in Crusader times. In addition, they are generally polysyllabic, presenting especial difficulty to Arabic- and African-language speakers.

Under the Language Transition Act of 2013, English is being phased out in all official documents and communications. During the transition period, the language must be purified of its historicalist and imperialist roots so that English speakers will not be induced to harbour unconscious revisionist attitudes. Therefore, H.M.M. Style Guide and Word Usage is hereby modified to restrict the use of Latin- and Greek-derived words in so far as is practicable.

This will typically replace single, reactionary, multi-syllable words with groups of simple, easy to understand words, preferably with no historicist-imperialist content. For example, the sentence "Vapourise the infidel" may be written as follows: Make kufars split into small bits of gas.

It is understood by our office that this will be difficult at first, particularly for government workers whose time in office began before the Caliphate. Be comforted that no stonings or hangings will be administered for first offences.

In the name of Allah the Merciful and the Prophet (pbuh), we have spoken.

Tighter little island

Peter Hitchens, bless his heart, feels sick at the prospect of the United Kingdom not only losing any of its traditional cultural identity but becoming wretchedly overpopulated, a European India.

Our Brussels masters predict that Britain will soon be the most crowded country in the whole of Europe. Presumably this is what they want, since it is their laws that have destroyed our borders and abolished British citizenship and British passports (that wretched puce thing in your pocket is an EU passport, not a British one, and the further east you go, the easier they are to get).

The European Commission says there will be almost 80million people crammed into our landscape by 2058. Just imagine all that concrete, the thousands of square miles (or square kilometres as they will be by then) chewed up by bulldozers.

Imagine the unending 24-hour whoosh and grind of traffic, the bulging trains, the seething, noisy, litter-strewn parks on hot summer Sundays, the crowded schools, the endless waits at enormous polyclinics to see a doctor you’ve never met before and will never see again, who probably doesn’t have English as a first language, and the multicultural schools where half the class will always be from somewhere else. I’m quite glad to think I’ll be dead by then.

England's "green and pleasant land" is being turned into an island-wide version of New York City and its New Jersey suburbs.

Americans have no reason to feel superior to this madness. The United States has added 100 million to its population since the 1970s, mostly through immigration and immigrants' high birth rates. On it goes, and goes. The process is like compounded interest, growth of growth, not addition.

The Liberal Establishment loves a booming population (as long as it's a non-Anglo boom), since that advances its program of race replacement. The Business Establishment loves bigger numbers because they mean more cheap labor and, in theory, more consumers.

White nationalists want to try to outbreed immigrants. The Catholic Church wants to soak in a bath of millions more Latinos accompanied by a consequent spiritual uplift for its collection plates.

"Green" activists wouldn't dream of population stabilization or reduction — they want us to adopt a meager lifestyle and live in high-rise multi-unit dwellings instead of houses, so we can shoehorn still more people into the country, since they imagine that will boost their leftist agenda. The social work Mafia wants lots more clients to build its empires on. Every group craves more people in the belief their own fortunes are thereby furthered.

We can look forward to a population of 400 million in another 30 years, unless there is a change of heart and our people say too much is too much.

The only thing that makes the U.S. any better able than the U.K. to absorb vast additional numbers is that we are a much bigger country and have more room — although that is deceptive, because population growth occurs in concentrated areas, not randomly distributed over all the so-far sparsely settled space.

Our new millions won't be living at 12,000 feet in the Rocky Mountains or the sandy hills of West Texas. They'll gravitate toward urban and suburban areas, where the effects of human density will make life less bearable with each passing year.

Who speaks up for quality of life? Almost no one, it seems, except for the occasional eccentric like Peter Hitchens. Everyone else worships growth, as though that is some kind of good in itself.

Overpopulation is the hell we will deny, deny, deny, until it becomes totally intolerable. And incapable of amelioration.

Never has reincarnation seemed less appealing.

English police's new mission: sex change

Police send 344 officers on sex-change training

— Headline, The Telegraph, London, August 4


Constable Martin Flournoy

Knock knock. "Come."

"Police Constable Martin Flournoy. You wanted to see me, Chief Inspector?"

"Ah, Constable Flournoy. Have a seat."

"Thank you, sir."

"Not at all, not at all. Now, constable, I'll get straight to the point. I understand you're rather fond of women."

"Well, sir, I can't say I haven't made the rounds a bit, checked out the local talent if you follow, but I assure you it hasn't interfered with my duties. Last week I issued 12 summonses for dustbins that weren't smartly latched, arrested a bloke for menacing a burglar who was entering his house — "

"Just so, just so. Keep it up and I can tell you, off the record, you're in for a commendation. Now, constable, you are aware of course of our department's obligation under Her Majesty's Gender and Racial Employment Equality Act, section 133 (a), to achieve absolute equality between the sexes and races by 1st January of next year. I'm sorry to say that our female recruitment drive has not achieved all we expected, and we're looking like being short by seven women police."

"Sorry to hear that, sir. If you'd like me to pass the word down the pub that we're looking for seven more — "

"Ah, constable, we've lowered the height and weight standards for women recruits to three feet and 48 pounds, and still no joy. I'm afraid we can't trust to luck. We're going to have to get a bit proactive here. Now, you've acknowledged you are partial to women. Good thing, that. I'm asking you to volunteer for a sex change. You'll thank me for it. Off the record, the Home Office has assured me that women will be on the fast track for promotion. You'll have a desk job before you can say Jack Robinson, no more slogging about with dogs wearing booties and that. I understand your hesitation, but change is the spice of life, isn't that what the convict said when they fitted him with the noose, ha ha?

"Not to worry at all, old son. We have a special training course to get you sorted for life as a woman. Very qualified instructor, she's a tough old bird but fair. Well, that'll be all for now, constable. Does 'Martina' suit you?

"Oh, one more thing. I'm afraid our racial equality target isn't quite on, either … ."

The move is in response to one of their colleagues undergoing treatment to change from a 42-year-old married man into a woman called Lauren. But senior officers have said it constitutes "political correctness gone mad" to have staff on anti-discrimination training when they could be out on the beat.

A total of 510 staff - including 344 police officers - working for Humberside Police in North East Lincolnshire received a letter from the chief superintendent saying they had to attend the half-day training course to help PC Lauren's transition.

Am I the only one who's fed up with the phrase "political correctness gone mad"? Gone mad? As though p.c. is a thing of beauty unless it's pushed too far?

Twit disguises himself as priest to fool congregation

Say what you like about the Daily Mail — or what you don't like — but it never fails to provide material for an amateur satirist such as your blogger.

Here's today's installment:

Priest disguises himself as a tramp to teach his own churchgoers a lesson

When Reverend Rigby wanted to teach his congregation a lesson about being kind to others he came up with a rather colourful way of demonstrating his point. As the 70 churchgoers turned up for their regular Sunday morning service at the Methodist church in Prestatyn, north Wales they found a scruffy tramp sitting in the church porch. Stinking of beer and dressed in filthy clothes, the disgusted churchgoers did their best to ignore him as they filed past. This task was made even harder when the unwanted guest joined them on the pews, surrounded with syringes and drinking from a can of lager.

‘It was interesting to see the reaction from people - I was totally ignored. It showed that we don’t recognise God at work and in each other.’

He said: "In other places I was given as much as £4.50, a packet of biscuits and a blanket - but in Prestatyn I got nothing. ‘I told the congregation they are a stingy lot. Everyone was amazed and later complimented me on my acting skill, though some said I had made them feel terrible.’

Let's examine the moral implications of this stunt.

Reverend Rigby believes that the churchgoers should not have reacted with distaste to a "scruffy tramp" sitting on the porch of their house of worship. They should have looked through his earthly form and seen the God within. But, being a "stingy lot," they failed to immediately shower him with love and money.

The priest is right to this extent: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. However far we stray — and certainly there are people who stray a lot farther than the "tramp" — we are all connected with God and perfection, no matter how much we fall into the delusion of believing we are no more than human, or perhaps no more than animals, or machines.

Many good people come to misfortune, are down and out through no fault of their own or even through faults that should not earn them rejection by human society. If the congregation of Prestatyn consists of ordinarily decent people, I'm sure they recognize this.

But that isn't the lesson Reverend Rigby wants to convey. If the article is an accurate account, there seems no other conclusion to draw than that he wants his flock to accept the "tramp's" behavior. Namely, sitting on the porch steps, probably blocking the way in. Smelling like a brewery. And then, sitting in a pew, tossing back the booze, "surrounded with syringes."

Such a person is expressing contempt for the congregation as well as whatever spiritual presence the church represents. He is quite brazenly spitting in the eye of society, declaring by his actions that he is not bound by even the ordinary conventions of good manners. He is completely indifferent to propriety.

Reverend Rigby expressing his real identity (above)
and posing as a spiritual leader (below)

I doubt that all, or even most, of the churchgoers Reverend Rigby ministers to are rich. Some of them probably make sacrifices to be able to put a few bob on the collection plate. They may be no better or worse than the run of us people, but they have enough respect for themselves and each other to know how to behave in church.

So tell me why they should accept a lout in their midst and, in effect, reward him. In fact, the priest tells us they ignored him, which shows considerable forbearance. In another day and time, a couple of beefy men in the congregation would have persuaded the man who was defiling the service to take himself away, with whatever degree of persuasion was necessary.

Yes, people who have lost their minds, who have destroyed themselves or cannot help themselves do not lose all claim to empathy. In a different setting, in another way, most of the congregation would probably help someone taking the initiative (or at least cooperating) in trying to turn his life around. That, I think, is compatible with what God wants of us.

But to imply that we must tolerate and enable anti-social behavior in the name of compassion is not Christian, is not spiritual, is not virtuous if a society wants its self-destructive citizens and its unfortunates to be something greater than dole collectors. But today's Britain has no higher aspirations for them.

Police sniffer dogs shake their bootees

Canine Detective Inspector Milo Plimsoll

Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.

Guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) urge awareness of religious sensitivities when using dogs to search for drugs and explosives. The guidelines, to be published this year, were designed to cover mosques but have been extended to include other buildings.

The Sunday Times (London), July 6, 2008

Special Branch Office
Sensitivity Station no. 2844
Wretchley-on-Whelm
London ES5 GL9

7th July 2008

To our esteemed neighbours:

In an announcement which I am sure that you will applaud, I am happy to inform you that on those occasions (which I am confident will be extremely rare) when it is necessary to perform a search for explosives or drugs in the Old Smithy area of Wretchley -- be assured we on the Force will prosecute anyone using the term "no-go area" -- a new team has been formed to fully respect the sensitivity of inhabitants who are followers of The Prophet (pbuh).

Our search team will be led by Canine Detective Inspector Milo Plimsoll, pictured above. CDI Plimsoll has been thoroughly briefed on correct attire for explosives or drugs detection and seizure, in the unlikely event that such detection and seizure should occur.

In the spirit of reaching out to the community, I invite you to stop by Sensitivity Station no. 2844, only a camel trot from the mosque on Gorse Road, and meet all the members of the new team. Please provide 24 hours advance notice so that we can ensure that all squad members are wearing their proper kit.

Canine Detective Sergeant Camilla Sleed-Bramway

Kind regards
DCI Markham Down

Special Branch Office
Sensitivity Station no. 2844
Wretchley-on-Whelm
London ES5 GL9

12th July 2008

Dear Sheikh Al-D'Alusia,

Yours of the 10th has been received and noted with the greatest sensitivity. In response to your protest that "boots do not make an unclean animal clean in the eyes of a Believer," a special meeting of the Community Relations Council, chaired by the Anti-Terrorism Assistant Minister for Diversity (Acting) herself, was called yesterday. I am pleased to inform you that in the interest of harmony among our rich tapestry of citizens, a new policy is now in effect. Taking note that the equine species is in much favour among your community -- is there not a breed called Arabian? And did not The Prophet himself (pbuh) ride off to heaven on a steed called (I believe) Burqa? -- the search team has been thoroughly reconstituted. I invite you and all your community to stop by Sensitivity Station no. 2844 at any hour of day or night (no advance notice required) to acquaint yourselves with our new explosives inspectors.

Equine Detective Inspector Racing Stripe

Hoping that you will greet this gesture of respect with equine-imity, uh, scupper that, I meant to say with full acceptance,

Kind regards
DCI Markham Down

'Ere, 'ere, wot's all this then?

Muslim bobbies for sharia law and order

I haven't made many entries lately in the "Britain self-destructs" category. No novelty value. Dog bites man. Small earthquake in Chile. Politician denies wrongdoing, says photo of him accepting bribe taken out of context. Yawn.

Still, for old times' sake, let's remind ourselves what happens when a nation convinces itself it must adapt to its heterogeneous colonists. Here's a four-year-old BBC news article, picked up by Dhimmi Watch last Friday:

Chief inspector Richard Varley of the Association of Muslim Police said he hoped staff would be able to pool ideas and experiences at the seminars. Mr Varley said his own force, the Metropolitan Police, had addressed a number of the needs of Muslim staff, but he would like to see that extended across all forces.

"I hope the seminars will result in more improvements in the working conditions and environment for Muslim staff. For example, I'd like to see prayer facilities at work being pretty more universal as they are at the Met where there's a prayer room at New Scotland Yard," he said.

It is not known exactly how many Muslims work for the police service, as no religious monitoring is carried out. However, after the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report in 1999, all forces across England and Wales were set a 10-year target for ethnic minority recruitment. Each force was set individual recruitment targets, which reflect the cultural diversity of the community it serves.

But earlier this year the Metropolitan force admitted it was highly improbable it would meet its target of 25% ethnic minority staff by 2009.

The Met does not need to be bothered about Muslim recruitment targets. Once King Charles the Dhimmi acknowledges sharia law for al-Britannia, it won't be a donkey's age before the police force will be 100 percent Muslim "to reflect community values." I do not believe that there will be a drive to recruit ethnic minorities such as indigenous British.

Made for each other: Bobby and Sharia

Jack 'Imam' Doyle on his way to sharia class. 'I know this secret plan to combat terror will Mecca difference,' he says.

This could well go under Photon Courier's running head "Just Unbelievable":

Bobbies will be taught sharia law and the Koran in 'secret' plan to counter terror at local level

Police will be trained on the importance of sharia law and the Koran to Muslim communities, under new plans to fight extremism.

The lessons in Islamic faith and culture will become part of the formal training of constables working in towns and cities across the country. Chief constables say that, by understanding the community they are policing, officers will build better relationships.

Okay, but does this go far enough? Why not demand that all U.K. coppers convert to Islam? Or at least pay a jizya tax to the Muslim community if they fail to convert? That would help them understand those they are enabling, sorry, I mean policing, right enough.

The Chief Constable in charge of the strategy, West Yorkshire's Norman Bettison, said: "We work closely with communities and the majority of police training at the moment in this area is done in partnership with Muslim organisations.

"We are building on this basis of training and emphasising that a basic principle of policing is that officers work with and should understand the communities they are policing."

Excuse me, Chief Constable Bettison, but may I put to you the suggestion that a bobby's job is to protect lives and property and catch criminals? For that he or she needs an understanding of British law — you recall that term from your days as a young recruit? — not of a Middle Eastern tribal cult. Sociologists may wish to comprehend the traditions of forcing women to undergo mutilation and wearing a black tent, and the rationale for honor killings. Police only need to understand one thing: these practices are not on.

What this "secret" plan — what's secret about it? — is actually about is normalizing sharia, giving it status as an acceptable alternative system.

And thus it goes on, the creeping Islamification of Britain.

Welcome to Malaiseia

Today's Telegraph has one of the more bizarre headlines I've encountered in a while, even in these mad times:

Mosquito 'infringes rights of teen gangs'

As if the country didn't already have enough on its plate. Other headlines in the same issue include:

Students win terror propaganda appeal
Teen binge drinking 'causing misery'
One in five children grow up on benefits
Roadside sex attack ignored by drivers
Government migration stance 'illiterate'
Elderly care blunders cost NHS £180m
Council pays £60 for exorcism

It turns out that this mosquito is neither an out-of-control mutant nor the latest improvised weapon ("Terrorists breed teen-devouring mosquitoes" — The Sun). It's a cutting-edge marketing tool, an instrument that drives people away. Well, some people.

An ultrasonic device that deters congregating teenagers with its high-pitched whine should be banned because it infringes their rights, the Children's Commissioner has said. The Mosquito, which produces a penetrating tone that only under-25s can hear, has proved popular with shop owners and councils who want to banish groups of youths engaged in anti-social behaviour.

I want one. Especially the mobile unit, for the next time, if ever, I'm in the U.K.

Anyway, if this thing is banned because it "produces a penetrating tone that only under-25s can hear," shouldn't 95 percent of pop music be banned?

Malaise at the heart of British society.

But it's a civil rights issue, according to the usual busybodies.

The Children's Commissioner has launched a campaign to rid the country of Mosquitos with the human rights group Liberty. He said: "These devices are indiscriminate and target all children and young people, including babies, regardless of whether they are behaving or misbehaving."

Their use "demonised" youngsters, he claimed. "I think it is a powerful symptom of what I call the malaise at the heart of our society." He told BBC Radio 4: "I'm very concerned about what I see to be an emerging gap between the young and the old, the fears, the intolerance, even the hatred, of the older generation towards the young."

Perhaps Britain's shopkeepers could take a hint from the town council of Peterlee, Durham, and pay for their premises to be exorcised.

The Devil sends his compliments

England expects every person to do her duty!
Welcome your friends and neighbours!

I read this yesterday but quickly dismissed it as a subject for a blog posting:

Fanatic 'hoped to spread fear with beheading'

A terrorist planned to kidnap a British Muslim soldier, cut his head off “like a pig” and release a video of the beheading to cause panic and fear across the country, a court has heard. Parviz Khan, 37, was said to be a “fanatic” at the centre of a terrorist network shipping bomb-making equipment to kill British soldiers in Afghanistan.

But he was also hatching a plot at his home in Birmingham, to “kidnap and butcher” a member of the British armed forces, Leicester Crown Court heard. Khan was “enraged by the idea of Muslim soldiers in the British army,” said Nigel Rumfitt QC, prosecuting.

He said Khan planned to enlist the help of drug dealers to approach a soldier in Broad Street, the nightclub centre of Birmingham.

“They were going to take him to a lock-up garage and there he would be murdered by having his head cut off 'like a pig,’” Mr Rumfitt said.

A practiced self-nagger, I later confronted myself: why had I thought this bit of news not worth comment? Have we — me included — become so blasé about planned or actual terrorist outrages that they barely register on the Jihad Seismic Scale? There have been thousands before, will be thousands henceforth. Yawn.

Assuming Parviz Khan and his associates are found guilty as charged, it won't change the big picture. Plotters after plotters may be arrested — and, credit where due, the counterterrorism agencies of the Western countries seem to have done a brilliant job — but long term, the normalization of murderous deviancy becomes a fact through sheer repetition of atrocities and would-be atrocities. They become like car accidents and natural disasters, distressing to read about but without the power to shock, and without giving rise to questions about why such things continue to happen.

Further analyzing why I didn't think this item worth a blog post, I had to admit that in Britain such things no longer make a difference; would have made no difference even if the wicked plan had been carried out. Sure, many British people would have been sickened and outraged, with calls to stop the insanity of Muslim immigration. But they might as well save their breath to cool their porridge with.

The country's Boneless Wonder rulers have long since made the decision for ethnic replacement of the native stock. It's what their globalist masters want and what they expect will keep them in office now and eventually land them cushy sinecures at EU headquarters in Brussels.

So the politicians will shake their heads. How unfortunate. They will appoint a high-level committee (let's see, this is number 347, is that right?) to study the root causes. Presently they will issue a gravely worded report, expressing in the strongest possible terms the need for greater efforts to integrate Muslims into British society. The U.K. is still full of prejudice. The future majority must be welcomed. Not only by government programs, important as those are, but by individuals, reaching out to the newcomers to show how valued they are, lest they have brain space for Bad Thoughts.

"Parviz? Come in please. So glad you could make it by this evening! Sit you down and get right comfy. Can I offer you something to drink? No, of course not alcoholic, I know that's forbidden by your Prophet (p-be-uh), booze just a decadent custom of us infidels, how about a nice traditional cuppa tea? Great!

"So … understand you're in the export business. Some sort of equipment for rebuilding Afghanistan, right? Good line, that, plenty of customers I reckon. Do you go in for football, Par? Thought you might be an Arsenal supporter, hope we can go to a match one of these days. Bring your wives."

The British Establishment has made its deal with the Devil. The Devil always keeps his part of the bargain. And sees to it that he gets what's owed him.

Inte-Great Britain?

Would you favor people with an urge to beat you up becoming more integrated into your community?

Apparently lots of Brits do.

The Telegraph reports the results of a poll that "comes at the end of a week in which Muslim integration has been pushed to the top of the political agenda following an article in The Sunday Telegraph by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who claimed that Islamic extremism in Britain had created no-go areas."

The poll found that "Britons are divided on the issue, with 35 per cent agreeing with the bishop, 38 per cent disagreeing, and the rest unsure. More than half - 56 per cent - were critical of the failure of Islamic communities to integrate into society. Only one in four felt that they had been successful."

Also according to The Telegraph's account:

Church leaders in communities with large concentrations of Muslims said that Christians were being targeted. An east London vicar who had delivered Christmas leaflets in his parish said he was told to stay away from "Muslim areas". He said: "Despite this being a mixed area, where Muslims make up only about 15 per cent of the population, I was told that the leaflets were offensive and could make people angry."

Another churchman said his path had been blocked by Muslim youths as he drove through a district of Oldham, Lancashire, last year. "They wanted to know why I was coming into 'their' area," he said.

A priest ministering in the Manchester district of Rusholme said he knew of "dozens of cases" in which Muslim converts to Christianity had been attacked.

Another church leader said that Asian Christians in Leicester feared being identified when leaving churches. "They are scared of being stopped and beaten up if they are found carrying Bibles," he said.

None of the church leaders we spoke to wished to be identified for fear of retaliation, but Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, said: "It's increasingly difficult for non-Muslims to live in areas of high Muslim density, especially if they are practising Christians."

Yet, The Telegraph still asks in its headine for a series of graphs showing the poll results, "Are We Integrated Enough?" What a fatuous question. It implies that all the troubles reported in the story would go away if the people who are causing the trouble would just be more integrated.

Can't British people, or their out-of-touch politicians, get a clue from the history of American race relations that integration is no automatic solvent of civil strife — even when the group to be integrated is blacks with a long history, a language, and for the most part a religion shared with the rest of the society?

How much longer can the British go on refusing to face the obvious, that Islamic values do not fit with those of a free society, and the only way that "integration" can take place is to accommodate Muslims by restricting freedom of speech and expression of ideas? Which is, in fact, exactly what the country is doing in a doomed effort to mix oil and water, or as the British say, chalk and cheese.

Sure, Muslims will be happy to integrate — under shar'ia law, in a Muslim state, with non-Muslims as dhimmis. Until that time, which is maybe not far off, they will keep themselves to themselves as much as possible, thank you, and try to intimidate the infidels they must temporarily share power with.

The hardest thing for any politician to do is admit, "I made a mistake" — even if it was a mistake so many others made. "Ladies and gentlemen, I was wrong, just like most of you lot. I know what I must do: fall on my sword, like a noble Roman of old. Then you can throw my body to the dogs. I'll still be better off than you, because you're going to have to live with what you've done, you stupid sods."

Nobody wants to openly acknowledge the obvious, which is that it was a catastrophic mistake (unless you believe it was deliberate) to open the country to virtually unlimited Muslim immigration and try, with bottomless futility, to integrate a culture that is everything traditional British values would reject.

Incidentally, as far as I can tell from The Telegraph, the percentages of answers to the poll questions were derived from a combination of non-Muslims and Muslims. How would the results have differed if they'd been broken down along those lines? I guess neither The Telegraph nor the government wants to know, or wants the British people to know.

British Embassy pushes Islam in Washington

This is one of the photographs on exhibit at The Art of Integration Exhibition: Islam in Britain's Green and Pleasant Lands, which is or was on view at the British Embassy in Washington, DC. (Tip of the hat: Gandalf at Up Pompeii). The caption: "A Muslim Choir. Dr. Timothy Winter (Abdul Hakim Murad), of the faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, leads his Muslim choir in their recitation from the 'Muslim Songs of the British Isles' in the grounds of Cambridge college."

You can see more examples of the carefully cropped, idealized image of Islam in Britain the embassy wants to con you into believing at the exhibit Web site.

The oily text declares:

This exhibition salutes the ordinary and the extraordinary contributions made by Muslims in the everyday life of the United Kingdom. They too play an integral role in medicine, law, politics and every other profession and field. They have contributed hugely to creating the wealth and prosperity which Muslims and non-Muslims alike enjoy in the UK today.

As the British expression goes: cobblers. Ask the non-Muslim, indigenous British residents of Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford, Luton, and the many areas of London where Muslims predominate how the Prophet's followers have changed their neighborhoods. Sure, ask them about Muslims' ordinary contributions, as well as those, uh, "extraordinary" ones. Like the mosques run by imams foaming at the mouth as they preach hatred against the infidels who have welcomed them and support many of them on welfare.

The exhibit got one thing right, though: the Muslims do play an integral role in politics. Both Labour and the Tories are servile to them, ready to send even a judge to a re-education camp ("further training") for asking a woman to remove her face-hiding veil in court.

Scotland Yard's mascot sacked for being too white

Look, I admit it. I've exceeded my weekly quota of entries about politically correct dementia in Britannistan. You are entitled to more variety. But I just can't let this pass without note.

From the Times:

Mascot is too white, male and blond …
so Met introduces the PC PCs

Scotland Yard is spending £15,000 on ethnically diverse police mascots after complaints that PCSO Steve, its current rubber representative, is too white, too male, and too blond. …

The initiative follows the creation of a working group within the force’s Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate to tackle “race and gender” issues within the Met’s mascot division.

I love these ideological Holy Office titles the U.K. is lumbered with nowadays — "the force's Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate."

When I read the headline I thought at first that the mascot must be a dog, like fire departments' proverbial Dalmatians. I was going to title this posting "Cry 'fetch' and let slip the dogs of diversity." Oh well.

Complaints about him first appeared in The Job, the Met’s monthly magazine, in September when a Sergeant Wright wrote about using the mascot at a community event.

“An Asian member of our team agreed to be Steve,” the sergeant said. “He was wearing a short-sleeved shirt and because the character would not have dark-skinned arms it became apparent that the officer would not be able to perform the role. Female team members also felt isolated.” The Met responded by saying that it was addressing the race and gender issues around mascots, prompting Richard Barnes, a Conservative member of the London Assembly, to table a series of questions to Sir Ian.

After receiving the answers, Mr Barnes told The Times yesterday: “Are they serious? There are so many issues that are of greater importance than the gender of a giant foam doll.”

Special relationship, blood is thicker than water and all. But Britannistan needs to be sedated and kept for its own protection in the attic and fed through a slot in the door.

A slight victory in the Battle of Trafalgar (Square)

Rule, Britannia!


Rude Britannia.

Lord Nelson's column stands in the center of London's Trafalgar Square, the city's symbolic heart. At the corners of the square, statues of celebrated political and military figures on three plinths, or bases, have been supplemented for the past two years with a different kind of monument: to the classless elite's new standards based on cultural Marxism and ugliness inflicted on the helpless population in the name of authenticity.

Along with the relics of a formerly self-confident society with a sense of gravitas, the statue Alison Lapper Pregnant has occupied a strategic place on the fourth plinth in the square. It portrays a naked, real person's misshapen body.

You understand the symbolism. Uncompromising. Nothing to hide. A cool Britannia taking the piss out of those laughable old celebrations of nationhood. Above all, Homage to the Victim. Yes, Alison is a victim of Nature, not Man, but that will do.

"I regard it as a modern tribute to femininity, disability and motherhood. It is so rare to see disability in everyday life – let alone naked, pregnant and proud," said Alison Lapper. The Telegraph magazine said, "If you like art to be brave, original and challenging you'll love the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square." And chortled, "Since its award-winning refurbishment, Trafalgar Square has regained its place as London’s central piazza where people can meet and relax." As though the space had previously been as empty as the Arabian desert, and Alison added a touch of casual chic that left people feeling relaxed, good all over.

"Its re-opening has seen visitors increase by more than 200 per cent. These stunning pieces of modern art exhibited on the fourth plinth will further enhance the Square’s appeal. And provide a bit of company for Nelson." A bit of company, ha ha, yuk yuk.

Well, Alison's had her brush with fame, and much good may it do her. Time's up. The statue's been removed — not because the light of graciousness has broken through, but because it had been scheduled for a two-year run and is now replaced with another modern sculpture.

Brendan O'Neill, writing in Spiked, has a few appropriate thoughts on this chapter in the barking-Chihuahua cultural politburo's determination to undo the United Kingdom's cultural heritage:

The statue captured much of what is rotten in the heart of new Britain. When it was first unveiled, some art critics gushed about how it would challenge people’s perceptions. ‘Against a sky the colour of old underwear, and a circle of buildings that might as well be built of concrete for all the life and warmth their stony facades exude, Quinn’s womanly but warrior-like Lapper [glows] like a beacon’, said one overexcited observer.

In truth, Alison Lapper Pregnant was about as challenging as old underwear. It was a drab monument to the backward pieties of our age. It showed that we value people for what they are rather than what they achieve. In our era of the politics of identity we seem more interested in celebrating individuals’ fixed and quite accidental attributes - their ethnicity, cultural heritage or in Lapper’s case, her disability - rather than what they have discovered or done in the world outside of their bodies. We prefer victims to heroes.

He went on to deliver the coup de grâce:

Alison Lapper Pregnant celebrated what nature, in all its arbitrariness, does to humans rather than what we do to shape, lead and transform the world around us. In this sense, it captured the deeply conservative nature of the identity agenda. The politics of identity privileges fate over self-made destiny. In all the talk of black, Muslim, gay or disabled ‘identity’ - categories created and sustained by the authorities to describe sections of the population who apparently have special needs and desires - we can glimpse the reintroduction of fate into public life, where individuals’ fortunes are seen as being determined by their skin colour or physical afflictions or cultural background rather than by the choices they make and actions they take.

Lord Nelson, on his lofty pinnacle in the square, was not portrayed as a giant eye patch, and his empty sleeve is no more than a detail. For our ancestors, it was enough that the man was responsible for destroying Napoleon's fleet in the Egyptian harbor at Aboukir and quite possibly prevented the Little Corporal from invading England by handing him another thrashing at Trafalgar. Nelson was killed in the battle. He was only a hero, not a victim.

Heads up! Here comes another hate crime

Did you wake up this morning feeling like beating up a double amputee? Don't do it — no, I say! No matter how satisfying it might seem, it's just not worth it. Especially if you're in the United Kingdom.

Over in Orwellia, the government is planning to outlaw "inciting hatred against disabled people." (Tip of the hat to the ever-watchful DumbJon.) That comes bundled with legislation against inciting hatred of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. (That is, I presume, someone who falls into any of those categories: you don't have to be both lesbian and transgendered to be "special.")

The Barmy Broadcasting Company reports:

Damon Rose, editor of the BBC's Ouch website [excuse me?], said he had seen increasing stories about disabled people being bullied. "There is something about the happy slapping culture which hasn't helped disabled people. Disabled people are 'interesting' targets in that way," he said.

"Happy slapping," in case you live in a civilized place and have not heard of it, is the latest trend among Britain's apprentice criminals. Usually performed by a group, it consists of walking up to someone minding his own business and punching him till he's on the floor and bleeding, while capturing the celebration on a video camera, later posting it on the Web.

Mr. Rose has a point. There is undoubtedly something — I can't quite put my finger on it — that hasn't helped disabled people. However, let's not be too judgmental; happy slapping has been no little help to others who've been treated to a punch-up, especially accountants wearing pin-striped suits and carrying attaché cases. They deserve it, the toffs. But they're such unimaginative targets; surely it's more interesting, maybe even artistic, know what I mean, to bash some poor sod who's blind and a little lame into the bargain.

Simone Aspis from the British Council of Disabled People, which represents 350,000 members, said a "huge number" of disabled people were being victimised. "At the moment people don't take it as seriously as other forms of hate crime. Research suggests that you are four times more likely to be a victim of crime if you are a disabled person."

Four times more likely? To be a victim of "crime" in general? I can just about believe that the differently abled would be mugged at a somewhat greater rate than their samely abled fellow citizens, although four times more likely seems like a number plucked from the ether. But to leave the field behind in suffering burglary, identity theft, car theft, investment fraud? Well, there are lies, damned lies, and … hold on, I'm sorry, we're talking about the unfortunate.

And David Congdon, head of campaigns and policy at Mencap, said it was important to try to "change the culture, to ensure people value each other equally".

Aha. Person Congdon, you have spilled the beans. As DumbJon notes, "So it's not about the huge number of people in wheelchairs being thrown off cliffs, after all. Instead it's about closing down the debate, so we won't be allowed to ask, for example, whether or not a guy so delusional he can't be held responsible for acts of hideous violence should be out on the streets in the first place. After all, asking that would be 'hateful'."

No, in Britain it is Year 25 in the Revolutionary Calendar, and the Union of Certified Guillotine Operators is sharpening the blades for necks bearing heads that don't value people equally. The People's Tribunal can't look the other way if any of the plebs lets slip a hateful statement of unequal regard for someone who falls into the category of, let's see, membership in a race (unless it's white) or religion, being gay, lesbian, transgendered, disabled, having a previous condition of servitude … my apologies if I've left anyone out, which I'm sure I have.

The diverse, egalitarian state of Orwellia knows what you should think and feel. And it isn't asking you. It's telling you.

Just in case I ever visit the U.K. again, I want to make it clear that I value everyone as equally as they want to be, and one of my best friends was a Zoroastrian sight-impaired transgendered unwed Tibetan father, formerly a foot washer in the mansion of a Saudi prince. It really bothered me when the happy slappers failed to show him due respect.

Lone justice

Plainclothes British police patrolling their beat.

It's been a while since I posted anything in the "Britain self-destructs" category — too easy. No sport in it. But this article, while about an incident that probably drew little attention, seems so symbolic of the state of the contemporary U.K. that it's worth pondering. From the online BBC News:

A pensioner fought off robbers with her walking stick after seeing them attack a 12-year-old girl.

Police are trying to trace the woman, believed to be in her 70s, who came to the girl's aid in a subway in Stretford, Greater Manchester.

The girl was robbed by three youths who stole money from her blazer pocket. The pensioner comforted the girl and even replaced her stolen money. Police say the girl's family want to thank the "brave" pensioner in person.

Robberies like this happen by the hundreds every day in Britain; the only thing that makes this newsworthy is the intervention to protect a young girl from feral youths. Not by the police, but by a 70-something woman, who no doubt can remember when her country, whatever its faults, was a place where you could walk outdoors practically anywhere without worrying about getting mugged.

Nowadays, every city in the U.K. is like New York in the '70s. Crime as wallpaper. Unless you manage to get yourself murdered, preferably while being black or an immigrant, don't expect any joy from the police. Burglaries in particular are so routine that if you are victimized, you can jump up and down on a pogo stick in front of the cop shop while singing "Jerusalem" without persuading The Bill to bother about your case.

What's going on here? Well, to take proximate causes first, the police leave crime prevention to septuagenarian ladies because something like 90 percent of their time is spent on desk work. Never mind citizens getting bashed, first things first: get those forms done properly. No bobby is safe from the long arm of the bureaucracy.

However much individual police constables and detectives want to do the job they imagined they were signing up for, they are up against a system that thwarts them. PC David Copperfield (a pseudonym, presumably) wrote a book, Wasting Police Time, describing his first-hand experience. The blurb says:

PC DAVID COPPERFIELD is an ordinary bobby quietly waging war on crime...when he’s not drowning in a sea of paperwork, government initiatives and bogus targets. 'WASTING POLICE TIME' is his hilarious but shocking picture of life in a modern British town, where teenage yobs terrorise the elderly, drunken couples brawl in front of their children and drug-addicted burglars and muggers roam free. PC Copperfield reveals how crime is spiralling while millions of pounds in tax is frittered away, and reveals a force which, crushed under mad bureaucracy, is left desperately fiddling the figures.

And that's before you add the ultimate fear factor: racial relations. In 2000, following a report that accused the U.K. police of "institutional racism," the Race Relations Act was amended to include all public authorities.

The new act for example covers the Police and makes it unlawful for any police officer to discriminate on racial grounds in carrying out functions including stop and searches, arresting and detaining suspects. Chief Officers of Police will be liable for all acts of discrimination under their command, unless they can prove that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent discrimination.

While the intent of this legislation is defensible, it clearly puts the burden of proof on the police to show that they are not "discriminating," a term so general that it can mean practically anything. And chief officers, knowing that their careers could take the hangman's drop for any instance of supposed discrimination, and that there is no way to tell what a court might consider "reasonable steps," will naturally try to make themselves legally bulletproof. So the word goes out, sotto voce, that ethnic minorities and immigrants are by definition victims and the only villains are indigenous Brits, unless you catch a victimperson in the act with 14 witnesses and CCTV footage.

Those are the immediate causes of the U.K.'s plunge into apocalyptic criminality and the defense at the sharp end being left to civilians (who have to be careful not to use "unnecessary force" against robbers or burglars, lest they be sued for violating the criminals' civil rights).

I think these are symptoms of a deeper malady, though, the culmination of trends that go a long way back. After their gallant stand against the Blitz and their contribution to the allied victory in World War II, the British people promptly voted out Winston Churchill and voted in a Labour Party with the express aim of socializing the country. Thus began the nationalization of industries and the welfare state. It was 20 years before Britain started backing off from nationalization, and the welfare state has never relaxed its grip.

The Left's ideas were put into practice in the U.K. and remain the working ideology. The state sets the rules for everything right down to details of everyday life. If there is a problem, it's the state's to fix. About the only thing that has changed in 60 years is that the Thatcher government's "reforms" turned corporations loose to pursue profit pretty much as they saw fit. Today, hemmed in between the corporations and the government — opposites in theory, partners in practice — individual preferences and initiative count for almost naught.

When people find themselves in a situation where they have little influence on their country's policies or their living conditions and are assured that the state will "take care" of them come what may, regardless of what they do or don't do, it's disturbing but not surprising that so many of them simply abandon responsibility for their society or even themselves. The result is what Britain has sunk to: kids running wild, career criminals preying on what remains of the middle class, politicians out of touch with their supposed constituents, street-level policing shackled by bureaucracy and political correctness.

Maybe the lady who rescued the young girl from the yobs is smart not to step forward and allow herself to be identified and acknowledged for her bravery. After all, the yobs are still out there, and might come calling on her while 90 percent of the bobbies are diligently serving and protecting — themselves from the politicians.