High life

A tale of two families

Tolstoy wrote about all happy ones being alike, but what would he have said about the ugly ones?

16 January 2016

9:00 AM

16 January 2016

9:00 AM

Gstaad

War and Peace has been in the news lately, so what was it that Leo wrote about all happy families being alike? Tolstoy came to mind last week right here in Gstaad, when I encountered probably the worst-looking family I’ve had the bad luck to run into in the past 79 years. I wonder if Count Tolstoy ever considered writing a saga about how ugly families are all different in their ugliness.

It was early evening and I walked into the Posthotel, where Papa Hemingway once stayed while researching A Farewell to Arms. (He climbed daily on skins and schussed down after fortifying himself with glühwein.) Hemingway, alas, was not around, but a family that was obviously from the Gulf was. To call it a freak show would be too charitable. (Bearded ladies and Siamese midgets have nothing on this bunch.) Obese and Concorde-nosed children wearing leopard-print Versace jumpsuits had six bodyguards with earpieces jumping at their commands. The mother’s corpulence reminded me of a beached sunfish I once plugged out dead off a Florida Key. Her only movement was guiding chips from her plate into her ravenous mouth. She wore Kardashian-like clothes and a winter beanie on her head with a fur bobble on top. The husband was even more absorbed than the wife in his French fries. He looked angry and plebeian, a brutal lump of jelly, except when indulging his children as they screamed abuse at the bodyguards.

I sat as far away as possible with my back turned in order to be able to swallow, but it was hard going. A languorous sorrow for people no longer around engulfed me. How in hell have we come to this, I asked myself. I could hear them slobbering down food and


noisily drinking Coke. I quickly paid my bill and ran out of the place. My depression did not lift until the next morning, when I had to return to the Posthotel where I was giving a lunch for — get this — 16 loyal Spectator readers from South Africa. They are fourth-generation Anglos, and they live in Durban. I met the head of the family and his wife during last summer’s Speccie cruise. The Arnold Taylors and their children and grandchildren drove over from Wengen for a boozy lunch that erased the horrible images of the night before, thank God. Mind you, other unpleasant memories filtered through, despite the wine. How hypocritical Britain sold out loyal whites in Rhodesia to the Mugabe mobs, and the abuse that the British media and the ‘bien pensant’ heaped on tough, white South Africans who had created a great country that a clown like Zuma is now trying to undo.

Arnold Taylor is a businessman who owns a lot of regional airlines all over Africa. He was a Springbok, a family man who believes that education is the best gift one can leave one’s children. These are the kind of people the European so-called elite waged war against throughout the Thatcher years. You know the kind: family-oriented, hardworking, religious and patriotic. The type our media and intelligentsia loathe.

The poor little Greek boy noticed one thing while dodging immigrants last summer in the Aegean. Whenever the odd woman and child would emerge from a boat, the camera lenses would go into overdrive. The fact that more than two thirds of the adult asylum seekers were men did not interest our ‘neutral’ news reporters and photographers. Nor the fact that most of the unaccompanied minors were in the late-teenage category, with nine boys to each girl. If these young men are as fecund as those still at home, these teenagers and young men may one day have six children each, and, as the million-plus migrants who arrived in 2015 become more than three million by the end of the year, you, dear readers, do the maths. The future may be a Europe where whites are an endangered species.

The architect of this crime is Angela Merkel, a woman who will go down in history as one who helped destroy a white Christian Europe, aided and abetted by the bureaucrooks of Brussels. Yet a nice and decent man like David Cameron, one who could shield Britain from this catastrophe, has been — like Odysseus, unable to resist Circe and Calypso — incapable of ditching the EU once and for all and saving Britain from a fate worse than Ebola — a future of perpetual war between races and creeds, a rainy Middle East.

I know, I know, some of you might think the poor little Greek boy is panicking, but I’m not. It is as clear to see as the few liver spots on my hands. I’m only worried about my children and grandchildren’s futures. How is it possible that I see it so clearly and many cabinet members and the prime minister do not? Are they on the take? What is it that makes the governments of Europe willingly commit cultural suicide? Do we hate ourselves as much as that?

Sane people do not disinter heroes, burn records or wreck monuments. We are all guilty of a deranged revolutionary sickness.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • ebriolus

    Really good advertisement for Gstaad !

    • post_x_it

      What makes you think he’d want to see any of us there?

  • Fritz123

    Well, we still are much to nice to her. Yesterday, I heart some foreign policy expert in a radio interview and he was so upset that he sounded like Pegida. Her Bundespraesident is the one who gave cookies to the Queen. And a green pony.

  • WFB56

    “The architect of this crime is Angela Merkel, a woman who will go down in history as one who helped destroy a white Christian Europe, aided and abetted by the bureaucrooks of Brussels” Maybe, Merkel is the enabler, more than the architect?

    • Fritz123

      It is allways easier to destroy than to create.

    • Marvin

      AND! they will take us down to the bottom of the ocean along with them, no ifs and no buts, when this Cretin PM cons the people of Britain.

    • Hayekian

      If she is successful, history will be kind to her. The victors always write the history.

      • hobspawn

         “The victors always write the history.”

        What about the Cold War? The left writes the history.

        • Hayekian

          Which makes you wonder if they really lost…

  • johnhenry

    You’re an above average pundit, Taki, and I’ve enjoyed your mordant wit for 15+ years; but can you please stop using the expression “mind you”, which seems to figure at least once, sometimes twice, in everything you write? I’ve mentioned this before, but you refuse to heed me. Woe betide: I may have to cancel my subscription.

  • hobspawn

    Yesterday, two ageing media-types, apparently British, turned away from me rudely at a small party of fifteen friends in North London, because I suggested that powerful people in this country promote immigration. That’s all I said. They didn’t actually call me ‘racist’, but it was in their eyes, and good manners were withdrawn instantly.

    The woman had just suggested that it was a blessing that, unlike Paris, London was so bombed during the war because the resulting mixed neighbourhoods promoted integration of diverse immigrants. What scum these brain-washed bourgeois traitors are. I asked her which parts of Paris she thought would benefit from bombing.

    God bless you Taki, for your bravery and honesty.

    • Jennyvstheworld

      Have you considered that it may be you that’s brainwashed, perhaps by privilege and detachment? Surely it would be only sensible to engage in such reflection? The thing is that, when weighing the options, it seems that either there’s some international self-hating conspiracy hell-bent on destruction or people like you and the author are just miserable old codgers. On the balance of probability, I’d have to say the latter is more likely.

      • hobspawn

        Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.”

        • Jennyvstheworld

          You’re aware that doesn’t answer my question?

          I suspect that what you wish to try and prove is that muslims are muderous barbarians. This fails in two respects: firstly, I’m quite sure I could find some disturbing things in the bible, which serves to demonstrate that the existence of these passages possess only as much meaning as an individual chooses to give them. Which leads me to my second point.

          If Muslims were all murderous barbarians then there’d be rather more death and carnage than there is, would there not? Or perhaps you think the 1.6 billions muslims that largely get on with their lives in a peaceful manner are all just waiting for some signal from their lizard overlords? Perhaps at some future date, Cat Stephens will storm my house and attempt to throttle me with a guitar string.

          So, to put those two things together, the ideology exists, but is only followed by those who choose to. This equation is no more true of Muslims than it is the rest of us; it is humans that have a capacity for hatred and violence. The question, therefore, is why do some choose to? The answer, rather obviously, is that it’s used as a tool by those seeking power in an unstable part of the world. Just as some people use it as a tool to justify their own racism and fear.

          • hobspawn

             “You’re aware that doesn’t answer my question? I suspect that what you wish to try and prove is that muslims are muderous barbarians. This fails in two respects: firstly, I’m quite sure I could find some disturbing things in the bible, which serves to demonstrate that the existence of these passages possess only as much meaning as an individual chooses to give them.”

            ‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

            Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

            ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

            ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

            ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

            ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

            Sorry, that old interpretation trick doesn’t work with me. The Quran says slaughter the unbeliever to please Allah. It’s the word of god. And he says it over and over and over again. The Bible doesn’t. In fact, the New Testament is unequivocally pacifist. It says “turn the other cheek when you are struck”. It says “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. It says “put away your swords”. It says “thou shalt not kill”. It does not provide a detailed set of instructions for conversion by the sword, and a prophet who demonstrates religious violence just in case anybody is in any doubt.

            “Which leads me to my second point. If Muslims were all murderous barbarians then there’d be rather more death and carnage than there is, would there not?”

            Your argument is smoke and mirrors. Are muslims in general more or less brutal and murderous than people of other religions? Take your time.

            “Or perhaps you think the 1.6 billions muslims that largely get on with their lives in a peaceful manner are all just waiting for some signal from their lizard overlords?”

            Have you read the Quran?

            “Perhaps at some future date, Cat Stephens will storm my house and attempt to throttle me with a guitar string.”

            It may not be Cat Stephens. He is not a very good muslim. In particular he has not shown his faith to Allah by slaughtering the unbeliever, as the Quran commands.

            “So, to put those two things together, the ideology exists, but is only followed by those who choose to. This equation is no more true of Muslims than it is the rest of us; it is humans that have a capacity for hatred and violence. The question, therefore, is why do some choose to? The answer, rather obviously, is that it’s used as a tool by those seeking power in an unstable part of the world.”

            And the 7/7 bombers? Richard Reid? I could go on…

            “Just as some people use it as a tool to justify their own racism and fear.”

            I fear islam. I’m a complete loony, obviously. Thanks for playing.

          • hobspawn

             Jennyvstheworld: “I’ll take that as a yes then. You realise you’re starting to rave now?

            Who is raving? You can’t even avoid self-contradiction in one paragraph, a failure of logic endemic in the limitlessly irrational islamic philosophy. Here’s an example:

            Jennyvstheworld: “I note too that you appraisal of the situation supposes that others are ignoring the scripture, ignoring the terrorist actions and paying no heed to the dangers of extremism. None of this is true… …yes there is a lack of willingness by politicians and commentators to address the taboo subject of religion…”

            Jennyvstheworld: “…the far more prosaic liklihood is that you’re a simply a bigot.”

            A bigot who has offered a quote from the Quran which describes the manner in which Allah commands muslims to demonstrate their faith by violent slaughter. What have you adduced? Nothing but your own prejudiced waffle.

            Jennyvstheworld: “It probably can be applied to why a silly old man is afraid of Muslims.”

            Is that all you’ve got? “Bigot”, and “Silly old man”? Who’s raving? Is that you, Gordon?

             

          • hobspawn

            Dear Jenny, thinking of your pretty dreamworld as I read this morning’s news. Here’s a little excerpt from the BBC(!) page about ISIS bulldozing a 6th century Christian temple:

            “In 1743, its monks were given an ultimatum by Persian forces to convert to Islam. They refused and as many as 150 were massacred.”

          • Jennyvstheworld

            I’ve stopped, by the way because you have nothing new to add. “It’s in the Quran.” is the extent of your position. I’ve happy to entertain someone that can discuss opposing views, but the only rebuttal you can offer is to tell me I’m wrong, only in florid and insulting terms – insults that will clearly be water from a duck’s back to me, and therefore done purely as a form of self-pleasure, something I find rather pitiful in a man of your age. So far as I can see engagement is therefore simply me enabling your narcissism.

          • hobspawn

            Sorry, but when it comes to insults, you have set the tone. You started by calling me “brainwashed, perhaps by privilege and detachment” in your first sentence. In the same post you called me a “miserable old codger”. You’ve resorted to “bigot”, “silly old man”, ‘narcissist’ and so on.

            However, you never bother to discuss the meat of the matter: that muslims believe god dictated a book to a man whom they hold as an example; that the book is full of exhortations by god to do violence against many groups of people; that the exemplary prophet did violence and rape against many; that the 1400 year history of the religion is exceptional in its brutality and violence; that the overwhelming number and range of terror attacks today are by muslims, many of whom, shout Allahu Akbar as they slaughter and immolate themselves in the traditional fashion prescribed in the Quran. Yet still you persist with the moderate islam myth.

            It is not insults which are water off a duck’s back to you, but fact, reason and to use your own virtue-signalling vocabulary, ‘engagement’.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            “Blah blah it’s in the Quran blah.”

            Yep, exactly the same as the others.

          • hobspawn

             “Blah blah it’s in the Quran blah.”

            The callousness with which you dismiss the dangers of mass muslim immigration is shocking. Many more innocents will die because of the genocidal attitudes you share with our arrogant nomenklatura.

            PS “What scum these brain-washed bourgeois traitors are.”

            As was clear, that comment was in reference to someone who said it was a blessing that London was bombed heavily in the war because it produced ‘mixed’ neighbourhoods which are more inviting to immigrants. Perhaps you agree with that repulsive sentiment.

          • hobspawn

             “…how can you be so convinced that you are the clear-sighted visionary and we’re all so wrong?”

            I said no such thing. I simply quoted the Quran. Your efforts to slither around the subject at hand is feeble. The Quran is full of exhortations to violence. You have never read it, yet you defend it and its adherents without knowing what it says. These are the facts that come out of our discussion.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            It is a fact to say that the passage you quote is in the Quran, however you are going on to draw conclusions about what that might mean. Your conclusions are not facts, merely your opinion. We are not comparing our levels of information on the issue, but rather the different results we reach after reasoned consideration of the world around us. In this regard, you’ve already stated that people that do not share your opinion on Muslims to be traitors or brainwashed. That’s a very strong statement and I wonder what informs your confidence. You must think either that you know more than everyone else or are more mentally capable of determining the situation.

          • hobspawn

             “It is a fact to say that the passage you quote is in the Quran, however you are going on to draw conclusions about what that might mean.”

            There’s no meaning, just get out the cab. Sometimes things are as simple as they look. Read the Quran and ask yourself if there is any similarity between the violence Allah commands of the faithful and the violence that muslims disproportionately do.

            “Your conclusions are not facts, merely your opinion. We are not comparing our levels of information on the issue, but rather the different results we reach after reasoned consideration of the world around us. In this regard, you’ve already stated that people that do not share your opinion on Muslims to be traitors or brainwashed.”

            I regard them as brain-washed traitors because they support a policy which I believe will, in time, cause our country to descend into civil war, and if they could be bothered to read the barbaric Quran instead of staring gape-mouthed at BBC news it should be blindingly obvious to them that violent islamic scripture is the cause of much islamic violence.

            “That’s a very strong statement and I wonder what informs your confidence. You must think either that you know more than everyone else or are more mentally capable of determining the situation.”

            I am not special at all, but like many others in this country I can nose a pungent mass delusion when its stench has hung around for several decades. The frequency with which our satanic leaders set their steely gazes at the monitor and chant, hypnotically, “this has nothing to do with Islam” should eventually cause even your torpid brain to wonder why this has to be said.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            If we could pause for a second, because I just want to check: the sum of your argument is that Muslims have a heightened disposition for violence and are invading Europe with murderous intent. Your evidence for this is some passages that can be found in the Quran and a list of terrorist atrocities.

            That’s about it, isn’t it? Apart from the stupidity of everyone that disagrees with you, of course.

          • hobspawn

            You are determined to discover the true nature of islam only with a sword at your throat. You deliberately ignore scripture, the 1400 year history of aggression and conversion by the sword, and all of the atrocities taking place across the world today. Nothing will ever pierce your ideological fantasy until you yourself are beheaded. The torture and murder of countless innocents means nothing to you.

            It all has Nothing To Do With Islam. Carry on, traitor.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            I’ll take that as a yes then. You realise you’re starting to rave now?

            We still have a situation were you’ve taken the same facts as everyone else and reached a different conclusion. You have no explanation for why you have reached that conclusion, beyond hyperbole: you leap from your observations to your conclusions with no real substance between. To you, the violence and scripture is sufficient. For many other people, however, this is a hypothesis that fails when considering additional factors.

            You should consider why you have no explanation for why we others might have reached a different conclusion, beyond being feeble minded or traitors. You should consider why you have no explanation as to why the Governments of Europe would allow this supposed invasion – beyond yet more allegations of treachery.

            I note too that you appraisal of the situation supposes that others are ignoring the scripture, ignoring the terrorist actions and paying no heed to the dangers of extremism. None of this is true, but because you think yourself superior, it is easy for you to dismiss others as stupid. How arrogant! The thing is that everyone is concerned. Most are aware that the peace and stability of Western Europe is a privilege and can be easily disrupted by the instability that exists elsewhere. However, most of us do not jump to extreme reactions like you have. Most of us understand that there is greater complexity to the situation. Yes, there is violence, and yes there is a lack of willingness by politicians and commentators to address the taboo subject of religion (just as they are race, gender and sexuality). Any genuinely objective person would consider a range of reasons why this might be. You should ask yourself why your shining clarity on the subject depends on an international level of conspiracy, coupled with tragic levels of stupidity from even the most learned of individuals. As I opened with, the far more prosaic liklihood is that you’re a simply a bigot.

            Occam’s razor should probably not be applied to the millenia of human history. It probably can be applied to why a silly old man is afraid of Muslims.

          • GenJackRipper

            Christians have Jesus as the example of a perfect person; gentle, loving, forgiving.
            Muslims have Mohammed as the example of a perfect person; murderous, tyrrant, warring and having underage wifes.

            You think that might change things?

  • King Kibbutz

    Is there a way to right things?

  • Jennyvstheworld

    It’s been a long time since I read an article with such open-mouth astonishment. Obviously, I was aware that some people hold such views, but to be witness to the full deranged, bitter and stinking cess pit of a soul outside of fiction is remarkable – and leaves me feeling slightly dirty. That said, I did enjoy the risible notion that the author considers himself clear-sighted! To be so ridiculous in an article possessed from begining to end in absurdity took some doing. It does signal the lack of self-awareness the author has, however. No doubt the man himself would roll his eyes if he were to learn that it’s clear to me that snobbery and racism inform his impressions of the world – and I’d agree with him that RACIST! is an overused and unhelpful word these days – but, as just one indictation, is he not aware that undignified and tasteless fatties are a growing trend amongst his precious white Christians? Leaving aside the absurdity and vulgarity of a rich immigrant warning against less privileged souls departing war zones looking for a better life (wars enabled by Europe, of course), there is the question of the extremely selective nature of his analysis. Is his analysis that the correct course of action would be to have inpenetrable borders? No, not quite inpenetrable; he’d clearly think it fine for Europeans to go wherever they wish. So one-way borders, through which ‘we’ may pass in order to continue our global acquisition and interference. How many problems does he ignore in this suggestion? Well, our aging population for a start. Then the fuel that such high-handed arrogance provides to the incendiary situations he’s so fearful of. And there’s the crux: it is people like the author that are the problem. Dinosaurs from an age of empire and conquest, convinced of their natural superiority and natural right to exist at the top of a heirarchy that should be rigorously protected.

    I am glad to hear of the liver-spots. Like the dinosaurs, Panagiotis Theodoracopulos will soon be extinct.

    • edithgrove

      “I am glad to hear of the liver-spots. Like the dinosaurs, Panagiotis Theodoracopulos will soon be extinct”, these bien pensant diatribes always end with something shockingly fascist

      • Jennyvstheworld

        And tell me, did you know what bien pensant meant before you started reading Rod Liddle?

        PS You could do with looking fascism up in a dictionary too.

        • Sanctimony

          You might care to further your education by learning how to spell before shooting your mouth off…. the word you were looking for was ‘impenetrable’…..

          Otherwise, thanks for your monologue of political correctness…

          • Jennyvstheworld

            You should reflect on what it say about your character that you’ve replied to sneer at a spelling mistake.

          • Sanctimony

            Get back to your squat, in the company of Dave and Deirdre Spart…. your cyber presence has made me reach for the flea powder…. and I imagine the word impenetrable might refer to you in both the intellectual and physical condition…

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Insulting strangers on the internet: the classic hallmark of good character and happiness!

          • Sanctimony

            Talk about insults on the Internet….. you appeared on this blog for the sole reason of insulting Taki for expressing his distaste for a particularly vile, obnoxious and ill-educated sub-species of humanity, whose only raison d’etre is the vast wealth which they possess….

            When you wake up in your Stratford squat and have dusted yourself with DDT, reflect upon the utter banality and stupidity of your formulaic utterances… preferably before you disappear down to the Dog and Duck for another errr … seminar with Dave and Deirdre….

            However high a man sits, he still sits on his own a..e…..

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Why do you think foreigners are “a particularly vile, obnoxious and ill-educated sub-species of humanity”? I’m sorry for whatever experiences have led you, not only to such xenophobia and snobbery, but the need to protect yourself from others through the use of fantasy. To the list of things Taki is guilty of, I should add exploiting the fears and insecurities of people such as you. No doubt he is paid handsomely for his column inches.

          • Sanctimony

            I gather that Taki is paid a pittance by the Spectator…. it was a joke that used to do the rounds… He has enough money to get by without any sustenance from this publication…

            As for ‘vile’ foreigners etc; I was referring to a particular ethnic miscegenation from the Middle East who delight in all the mediaeval customs and traditions from which more civilised members of humanity have evolved…. I do not believe that we still behead 57 people in one day, nor amputate limbs for theft, nor stone women to death for adultery…. these savages, for whom you act as an apologist are an abomination…. they are still slavers and service their desert fiefdoms with Pakistanis, Philippinos and the likes, whom they treat inhumanely and with a complete disregard for their welfare….

          • Jennyvstheworld

            I really haven’t seen anyone apologise for anything; the question is not whether atrocities are atrocious, because I’m sure we can all agree that they are. The question is whether such a simple correlation can be made regarding the underlying reason for such extreme violence. Your contention is that it is an easy-peasy lemon-squeezy case of identifying the religion that links the abuses you have in mind. But that’s a pertinent point, isn’t it? You have in your mind only one small part of the wide variety and continuing violence of humanity through history. If there is anyone downplaying depravity it is you who chooses to ignore that where ever one finds instability and/or poverty one can also find men willing to subject others to the most appalling torture in order to gain or maintain power and control. One might just as easily say that it is men that are vile members of humanity that have not evolved, because to do so would be to ignore the very many men that live peacefully – just as you ignore the vast majority of Muslims that live peacefully.

            With regard to your other comments, it occurs to me that gentle explanations of where your arguments fail are probably not helpful at this stage. You have found some targets for some deep-deated anger and resentment and it is perhaps best to focus on what might have caused you to be like this. You can’t be happy and I sense that you are accusing others of what you fear may be true of yourself. I wish you luck and strength as you work through your problems.

          • hobspawn

            Jennyvssanity, there are paedophiles who choose not to offend. By your argument, we should allow paedophiles to build grooming centres next to schools on their account.

            You ignore the fact that islamic atrocities have a shockingly high degree of acceptance and approval amongst muslims in Europe. You ignore the fact that muslims are loath to express outrage at muslim atrocities because they submit to the Quran and to those in their community who threaten to accuse them of apostasy. You ignore the fact that to be a muslim is to hope and pray for the appalling oppression and brutality of sharia, in every country in the world. You ignore the fact that muslims believe the Quran is the word of god, despite the revolting immorality commanded within it, and so are fundamentally in league with the devil even when they don’t openly celebrate of carry out barbaric violence.

            Your silly belief that muslims are just like the rest of us and that they don’t really believe in their abhorrent book looks increasingly childish and ignorant as each week passes. When the shaky structure of your suicidally leftist propaganda machine comes tumbling down you will be held responsible for your lies and your stupidity. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later, as the stakes are always rising.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Good grief, are you still blathering on? You really needn’t; your theory isn’t very complicated and you’ve reiterated it several times over now. Your inclinations have been made very clear.

          • hobspawn

            Your ‘theory’ and ‘inclinations’, on the other hand, are delusory, traitorous, and genocidal.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Again, views you’ve pretty much already expressed. Genocidal is new I think, but typical of your usual measured understatement.

          • hobspawn

            ‘Genocidal’ is not an exaggeration at all. Ask the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Armenians, the Copts and any number of peoples who have had the misfortune to encounter the world’s deadliest religion. All of those people made the mistake of thinking “it won’t happen here”.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Oh! Did you reflect on that and decide that calling my theory ‘genocidal’ probably was a little OTT? I see we’re back to atrocities being atrocious and ‘Muslims, innit’. As I said before, no one’s apologizing for the violence you cite. However, for your bigotry to work, you have to diminish or ignore every murderous act that you cannot link to Islam – because then you’d have to consider all the other factors involved. But you don’t want to do that do you? The only commonality you’re interested in is the Quran.

            Anyway, looking forward to your next installment of narcissistic invective.

          • hobspawn

            Your ‘theory’ is genocidal because it will bring about a genocide as sure as night follows day.

            It’s not about apologising for the violence, although you and the establishment do deliberately overlook it, but it is about carrying out policy which promotes it.

            Your effort at a syllogism, that violence occurs outside islam therefore islam can not be the cause of violence is breathtakingly stupid. Islam is a major cause of violence. It is a religion which holds as fundamental belief that god commands violence (‘jihad’) against a wide range of people. The fact that you continue to call me ‘bigot’ and ‘narcissist’ while attempting to distract from this obvious causation shows that you have a very weak grasp on reality.

            The more shrill and desperate your efforts to sustain and proliferate the NTDWI delusion, the harder your fall will be. Believe me, truth is like a tidal wave, and it is bearing down on you and your fellow anti-West conspirators with irresistible speed.

            Good luck and God bless you.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            I’m increasingly amused at how you clever you think you are. If you re-read what you just wrote, you’ll note that your rebuttal of my point was simply to call it stupid. At the same time, every position you take remains, ‘it is because I say it is’ and the aforementioned ‘Muslims, innit’.

            Not going to win any prizes at the debating society are you?

          • hobspawn

            This is about people’s lives, not a debating society. Do you care nothing for the families of those shot dead in Paris? Or the kind of country that our grand-children will live in?

            I have supplied an example from the Quran which is just one quote from hundreds which explain why muslims think they are justified in brutal violence against innocents. You have yet to supply anything at all of substance to this discussion except some kind of resort to egoism and platitudes of the form “some muslims are nice so it’s all going to be alright and there’s no need to look into the book which informs their lives”.

            This matters. Muslims really believe in the book. Your refusal to recognise that the book influences what they believe and do is very dangerous, as people from Mosul to Luxor to Paris to Los Angeles and Bali have discovered.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            I’m considering the possibility that this is a wind-up now. You’re either
            deliberately mangling issues or see the world in remarkably black and white terms.

            Of course I accept that the book (and the religion) influence people. What I’ve suggested several times is that taking the book and religion in isolation – which is what you seem to do – is to exclude various important factors; not least that the majority are not influenced in the way you describe.

          • hobspawn

            Do you live in an islamic country under sharia?

          • Jennyvstheworld

            No. I did spend six months in Afghanistan once, but I don’t think that’s what you mean. Of course, I’ve spent quite a lot of times in countries where there are elements of Sharia: Egypt, Kenya, Morocco (you doesn’t love the souk at Marrakech?), Lebanon (did you know there is a Hard Rock Cafe in Beirut? I sang karaoke there), Oman (if you ever go to Muscat, may I recommend the Al Bustan hotel. Fabulous place. I know a lot of Shell executives there and could probably get you into a beach bbq. They’d find your theories most amusing), UAE (Everyone has to see Dubai, don’t they? Remarkable place, even if not to my taste personally). Of course, I’ve been to Turkey too, but they abolished Sharia in 1924. Clearly, during my visits, the law hasn’t really affected me, but I have made observations. One of the most obviously worrying aspects concerns the status of women. I know that you too will be worried about this; you seem the type to be fully onboard with the aims of feminism. Additionally, the penalties for various behaviours also seem very harsh – almost as if punishments are set by the commentators under Daily Mail articles. What I did find very interesting, having had a lecture on the subject, was banking under Sharia. They have some different ideas, some of which our own financial regulators might do well to consider.

            Anyway, what was your point?

          • hobspawn

            …and Hitler made the trains run on time. What was your point?

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Are you finally running out of steam? You asked a very specific question and I’d assumed that there was some sort of follow-up point you wished to make.

            Perhaps it’s finally occurring to you that I may have spent some time in Muslim countries and have a view formed by experience rather than a theoretical position based on cherry-picked bits from newspapers and white-supremacy websites.

          • hobspawn

            The question, which in your slippery style you avoided answering with your “some of my best friends are jihadists” sermon, was “do you live in an islamic country?” Think hard and take your time.

            BTW, I have never visited a white-supremacy website, but I may heed your recommendation.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            “The question, which in your slippery style you avoided answering with your “some of my best friends are jihadists” sermon, was “do you live in an islamic country under sharia?” Think hard and take your time.”

            I like this a lot. I think it perfectly encapsulates our positions.

            If you’d care to review my post, I provided you with a one word answer. I couldn’t have been more direct if I’d tried. It was the first word of my post.

            And yet…

            I think the lesson you should learn here is that all your puffed up pomposity only serves to make you look more of a numpty. Pride comes before a fall, as they say. I think this is why I’ve returned to this ridiculous sparring: you’re simply far too much fun to walk away from.

            The fact appears to remain that whatever point you thought you were going to make has had the wind removed from its sails. Sorry to have pissed on your chips old boy. It would explain why you rather rushed into one of your typical rear-guard bouts of trying to sound patronising. How’s your backside after that banana skin?

          • hobspawn

            ‘Pomposity’, huh?

            The point is that you choose not to live under sharia yourself, but you preach a policy which means the children of your fellow countrymen will. That policy encourages seditious treason, as spelt out in minute detail in the ‘Holy’ Quran.

            I’ve had enough of your insults and your ignorance. Like most apologists for islam, you seem to me to be incapable of rational discussion. Over and out.

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Yes, I think a hurried exit would probably be best for you. And I don’t blame you for trying to reclaim a bit of dignity.

            However, you may wish to note that correct military voice procedure is simply ‘out’. ‘Over’ means ‘over to you for your next’. ‘Over and out’ meanwhile is simply something they say in bad tv scripts… So, after all , it’s probably quite a fitting way for you to end. Ha!

          • Sanctimony

            Or even, ‘says’…..

          • Jennyvstheworld

            Incidentally, I note you taking someone to task for their pedantry when you wrote this, “Of my year’s intake of about 40 eight year-olds” Eight years-olds, eh? Never mind.

            So now we’ve properly identified your trolling compulsion, can we examine what exactly it was about your schooling that led you to the path of “cynicism and scorn” you admit to?

            As counsellors say, once you’ve admitted having a problem, it’s so much easier to deal with it. Truly, I want to help, and am glad you’re being honest with yourself. It really is the first step.

          • Sanctimony

            What the f… are you babbling about…. you are obviously a claqueur and sock puppet of the Woman in White or Jabbapapa…

            You are a paranoid schizzo who, when questioned, retreats into some defensive, hocus pocus, escapist carapace …. Yes, I was entrusted to the Jesuits as an eight-year-old, who successfully ruined my spiritual life and, in the words of Ignatius of Loyola, they were a year too late to totally control and dominate my destiny….

    • GenJackRipper

      Classic lefty; bemoan someone for using bad words and then wishing them dead.

      Using bad language is punishable by death in SJW town?

      • Jennyvstheworld

        As I said in the post, RACIST! is an appallingly over-used term now. It’s meaning has somewhat been lost as it’s been employed to silence anyone that dare look at immigration (etc) through anything other than rose-tinted glasses. Through its use, gentle but concerned individuals are associated with the worst extremes of aggresive hatred for others. So it is with the ‘lefty’ classification: people bewildered by the arguments in front of them simply resort to placing everything they disagree with in a little box and shouting LEFTY!

        The irony of it all is that those that are most enraged share the same quality of being alienated from the middle ground. Aggressive LBGT whatevers, screaming their demands are just the other side of the same coin on which we find, well, the sort of people that post endlessly about Lefties.

  • King Zog

    None but Taki can ‘get away’ with this now. Gotta love the Taki…

Close