J.K. Rowling Is Wrong on Vegas, Gun Control, Islam, and Everything

Rowling
Credit: The Associated Press

Do you remember that scene in Harry Potter and the Saucer Full of Surrender Monkeys where the staff and pupils at Hogwarts finally decide to abandon the struggle against the forces of evil?
Voldemort, they’ve realized, is just too darn scary; the Death Eaters are too ruddy devious, what with all their lies and ruses and shape-shifting antics; and besides, who is anyone to judge, be they witch, wizard, mudblood, or muggle, whether the forces of light really are morally superior to the forces of darkness?

“Perhaps it’s just a matter of perspective,” Hermione tells an enthusiastic, jazz-handing audience at the United Nations of Wizardry. “Maybe what we’ve been taught by our chauvinistic, patriarchal, judgmental society — that the Avada Kedavra curse is wrong; that the Cruciatus is cruel; that the world would be a better, freer, happier place if it wasn’t ruled by sinister cloaked figures who want everyone to submit to their domineering, intolerant religious death cult — are just a reflection of our white wizardry privilege.”

What happens next, of course, is the famous scene where — under the supervision of Dolores Umbrage and the Ministry of Magic — all the staff and pupils at Hogwarts hand in their magic wands and burn them on a huge pyre.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

From Jimmy Savile to the Rotherham Rape Gangs: Lessons Won’t Be Learned

But our left-leaning news media would beg to differ. Some kinds of rape, we know from the coverage variously afforded them by organisations like the BBC and the Guardian, are definitely much, much worse than other kinds of rape.

Let me give you two recent examples from the news.

Example a)

A creepy, white cigar smoking disc jockey exploits his celebrity by imposing himself sexually on hundreds of impressionable young fans.

Example b)

Organised groups of mostly middle-aged Muslim men of Pakistani heritage predate on vulnerable, pubescent girls, first seducing them with drugs, alcohol and displays of false affection, then employing them as sex slaves to be multiply raped over a period of years.

Call me a racist Islamophobe but I’d say in terms of nauseating appallingness example b) does slightly have the edge. This is not, in any way, to play down the revoltingness of Jimmy Savile’s crimes. Clearly he was a cold-eyed, ruthless, bastard of a serial sexual predator – and the more we learn about him, the more abhorrent he becomes: raping a small boy while dressed as a Womble? Really?? His sleaziness is so hideous as to be quite beyond parody.

But on any objective level, you’d surely have to concede that b) is the more significant crime both in terms of scale and sheer brutality. More girls were abused, more frequently and more aggressively. Not only that but its socio-political implications are much more far-reaching.

From the Jimmy Savile case we learn only this: that the sexual mores of the 1970s made it much easier for celebrities to molest underage girls; that the BBC had a culture for many years in which it considered certain of its celebrities too big too fail. This stuff is all in the past; not much can be done to be remedy it now – other than perhaps exhuming by Savile’s body and sticking his skull on a spike on Tower Bridge.

From the Rotherham case, on the other hand, we learn any number of extremely depressing things: that thanks to the failed doctrine of multiculturalism, Britain’s Islamic “communities” still live in a state of self-imposed Apartheid in which they feel little loyalty to or sympathy with the broader national culture; that a significant percentage of Muslims in Britain have a moral code which precludes them from seeing anything wrong in raping little white (and Sikh) girls, whom they see as worthless kuffar prostitutes; that the authorities which ought to be preventing this happening – social services; children’s welfare charities; the police; local politicians; local “community leaders” – have instead either turned a blind eye to it or actively colluded with the perpetrators; that despite Rotherham – and similar cases across the country – there is absolutely no appetite among our political class for any concerted action to deal with the problem or to punish those on whose watch these crimes were allowed to happen.

It is this contrast, unfortunately, which explains why the voices of Britain’s liberal chattering classes find the Jimmy Savile case so much easier to discuss at such length than they do cases like Rotherham.

On BBC Radio 4 Today this morning, two of the chattering classes’ big guns – Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline and Times columnist David Aaronovitch – were wheeled out to make all the right noises about Jimmy Savile and the awfulness thereof.

You cannot, I fear, ever imagine it giving similar treatment to the Muslim rape gang phenomenon because it’s simply too big a can of worms, in which so much of the Establishment is implicated.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Neither Fox News nor Donald Trump Are Going to Come for You with an AK, Whereas…

If I wanted to follow their example and ramp up the ludicrous rhetoric, I might almost go so far as to say that these people are more dangerous than Islamic State.

Obviously I don’t believe that. But I do believe that this is exactly the kind of useful idiocy which strengthens the Islamists’ hand, not weakens it.

I personally think that Trump’s proposed Muslim embargo is silly, counterproductive, unjust and unworkable. But I’m still glad he said it because – as I suspect was his real intention – it so perfectly illustrated the massive gulf between where most ordinary people are on the subject of immigration and the Islamist threat and where our increasingly remote and complacent political class are.

If Trump’s proposals are “extreme” then how exactly would you categorise the current do-nothing policies being championed by most of the Western world’s political leaders from Barack Obama to David Cameron and Angela Merkel?

I’d suggest that policies which involve imposing tens of thousands of displaced citizens from Islamist hellholes like Syria and Libya on the reluctant populaces and creaking welfare systems of Western liberal democracies are about as extreme as you can get. They are, in fact, a form of tyranny.

This is why every time Trump says such things his popularity ratings soar. Some applaud him because he’s saying exactly what they believe themselves. Others – of which I’m one – applaud him because though we may disagree with the details of his policy, we’re so grateful to come across a politician – much as Nigel Farage is in the UK – who doesn’t mince his words, doesn’t hold the electorate in contempt, and is actually prepared to speak truth to (impuissant) power.

We have been here before.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Muslim Security Guard Who Saved Paris and Other Progressive Myths

Did you hear about theMuslim security guard called Zouheir at the Stade de France in Paris who, like, singlehandedly foiled what would have been the worst terrorist incident of Friday night?

Of course you did!

Perhaps you even felt as strongly as the Tweeter below did that it was so important the story deserved to go viral. As indeed it duly did. Among those who eagerly repeated it was that much-loved disseminator of truth, Piers Morgan, in a Mail on Sunday piece which since mysteriously appears to have been taken down.

AP Photo 1_0.preview

Why did it go viral? Because, as we know, quite the most important thing after any new terrorist atrocity committed by the Religion of Peace is for all right thinking people — renowned anti-gun campaigner and human rights crusader Piers Morgan, for example — to demonstrate how totally and utterly “nothing to do with Islam” they know the incident to have been.

Hence, for example, the #illridewithyou hashtag which emerged in 2014 when a deranged Islamist murdered two hostages in a Sydney cafe. Never mind the dead (cafe manager Tori Johnson and barrister and mother of three Katrina Dawson): the real victims of the incident, as all sensitive people understood, were all those Muslims in Australia who might now feel they were being given funny looks and somehow held responsible for this inexplicable act by one of their co-religionists which, of course, had “nothing to do with Islam”­™.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism… | James Delingpole

September 1, 2014

All right, so it was only a straw poll conducted among viewers of yesterday’s BBC Sunday Morning Live debate programme: 95 per cent of Britons think multiculturalism has been a failure.
But as majority verdicts go, it was a pretty resounding one – and it was delivered despite the BBC’s best efforts to muddy the waters, first by wheeling out two of the nation’s Multi Culti Apologist big guns Owen Jones and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and second by pretending that multiculturalism means something other than what it actually means.

Multiculturalism is a very specific political philosophy which could scarcely be further removed from the idea that we should live in one big, happy, multi-ethnic melting pot and all just get along. That’s because it means the exact opposite. It’s about separatism, not integration.

It was championed from at least the 1970s onwards by effete bien-pensants like Labour MP turned Social Democrat Roy Jenkins and is essentially a manifestation of the cultural guilt and self-hatred that afflicts the left-wing chattering classes. Rather than accept the truth which to most of us is glaringly obvious – that some cultures are manifestly superior to others – it urges us all to celebrate our differences and to accept values that we may personally find alien or even abhorrent in the name of creating a fairer, more tolerant and inclusive society.

So, for example, we in liberal Western culture generally take a dim view of marrying members of your own family, female genital mutilation, forced or arranged marriages, second-class status for women, voter fraud, systematic political corruption, honour killings, the organised grooming, trafficking and rape of underage girls, and so on.

In some of our immigrant communities, though, such practices are considered more or less acceptable. (And I’m only using that “more or less” modifier out of politeness).

From Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism
  2. Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism
  3. I prefer my cod in batter, thanks very much
  4. Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?

2 thoughts on “What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…”

  1. darren.halliday says:1st September 2014 at 5:19 pmMulticulturalism is no longer just about the “celebration of diversity”. Yes diversity is OK when discussing music, food, dance and traditional celebrations. But now, the debate on multiculturalism has to address the issue of state and social policy (as various cultural practices and beliefs are at odds with traditional British values). Do we encourage discrimination based on gender in inheritance matters? Do we allow the teaching that homosexuality is sinful in our schools? Do we allow segregation in public meetings at Universities? Do we allow opinion leaders/educationalists to NOT condemn stoning as a punishment when directly asked (and then practice power over schools)? What is urgently needed is a definition of the boundaries of multiculturalism. We cannot function cohesively as a society, if this boundary is not clearly defined and key (not negotiable) values must prevail in our institutions and law making.
  2. MellorSJ says:1st September 2014 at 5:30 pmI’m more or less in love with the modifier.

How Oxford’s Police and Social Services Looked away While 370 Underage Girls Were Gang-Raped

I’ve been reading the official report into the latest Muslim rape gang atrocity – in Oxford, this time, city of dreaming spires and the kind of place you’d never imagine such appalling crimes possible over such a period of time and on such a scale.

Be warned: the details are not for the squeamish.

But I think it’s important we’re all fully aware exactly what happened so that we can direct our righteous rage in the appropriate direction. People have been getting away with murder here – and I don’t mean the rapists: at least, finally, at long last, they’re going down. I mean the authorities responsible who, at time of writing, look as if they’re going to get off scot free.

Here, in bullet point form, are some excerpts from the testimony of the estimated 370 victims – all of them white girls, mostly from broken or abusive homes or in “care”, generally aged between about 12 and 15. The abusers were much older men from mainly Kashmiri-Pakistani backgrounds (though one of the convicted men was from Saudi Arabia, another from North Africa), who groomed the girls beforehand. That is they – or one of their younger associates – first showered these vulnerable, emotionally needy girls with affection that some of them had never had before; then they made them feel important and grown up by giving them gifts and alcohol and drugs; then, when the girls were hooked the trap-door suddenly shut and they found themselves being serially abused as sex slaves.

Oh, and the details below – according to the report – are the expurgated version. Apparently there’s other stuff so horrible the report wouldn’t print it.

  • They threatened to blow up my house with my Mum in it
  • I was expected to do things – if I didn’t they said they would come to my house and burn me alive. I had a baby brother
  • They took us to a field where there were other men who had come to have sex with us. I tried not to do it. There were five of them
  • I took so many drugs – it was just a mish-mash
  • Now I feel I was raped – I didn’t have any choice
  • I wouldn’t ever have said no – they’d have beaten the shit out of me
  • It was always Asian men
  • I got deeper and deeper into this group
  • Sometimes I was driven into alleys and woods and men would have sex with me
  • I wouldn’t have done this if I was sober. That’s why the men gave us so much to drink
  • Both men had sex with me lots of times – oral and vaginal
  • I hate them… all they do is rape you… all they want is sex… it’s happened to girls I know, not me before you ask, I not like that
  • When we were at the flats I knew I was there to have sex with whichever men were brought there.
  • He urinated on me
  • I was spit roasted [made to have sex simultaneously with two men]
  • I didn’t want to go to the places to do what I did, but it was my job
  • I went to London on my own to have sex with men they arranged
  • The fear is still very real for me – though they are in jail I still check the cars

This was going on for 15 years, remember. So where, you might wonder, were the police?

Well the report makes lots of excuses for them. Apparently, they were a bit confused over what technically constituted under age sex – statutory rape as it would be called in the US; they felt ill-equipped as to how to respond when, say they found a middle aged Pakistani taxi driver in a car with condoms and a drunk girl looking no older than 14 (yeah: maybe it was just her boyfriend, right?); and they hadn’t been taught properly about CSE (Child Sexual Exploitation), which is the formal term now given for this kind of crime.

But the really damning thing for me is the report’s revelations that actually some police officers DID try to speak out, desperately and repeatedly, only to have their concerns squashed or ignored.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Girls don’t need Body Confidence And Be The Change badges. They do need to know how to cook, bake and sew
  2. Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism
  3. What Ched Evans did was ugly and sleazy. But his lynch mob tormentors are barbaric
  4. Cumberbatch: the Umbrage Police claim another scalp

 

Christian hoteliers prosecuted for calling Pope ‘Catholic’ | James Delingpole

September 21, 2009

Perhaps you’ve read the shocking story. A couple of Christian hoteliers in Liverpool have been prosecuted by the police for a “religiously aggravated public order offence”, after one of their Muslim guests complained they had told her that the founder of her religion was a “warlord” and that Muslim dress was a form of “bondage for women”.

I wonder what prosecutions Merseyside police are planning on next.

Liverpool elocution teacher brought to trial for alleging that in Hartford, Hereford and Hampshire hurricanes hardly ever happen?

Scouse astronomer prosecuted for declaring that night is best time to look at stars?

Liverpool zookeeper arrested after bear takes offence at outrageous suggestion that ursine species only defecate outdoors?

2 Responses to “Christian hoteliers prosecuted for calling Pope ‘Catholic’”

  1. Number 6 says:September 21, 2009 at 8:42 amAh, but had the all pious and peace loving mooslimbs suggested that we all should submit to sharia law and that the west is a wicked and vile place, hence the need to fly aircraft into the twin towers, do you think PC (how apt) plod would be clattering down the hallway in his hobnailed boots?
  2. Badger says:September 21, 2009 at 9:52 amI can picture the scene:
    “Morning! Tea and coffee is over there, minute glass of orange juice there… now would you like bacon and sausage with your eggs? No? Probably not. Oh, and Mohamed was a warlord, you know?”