Have you got your names down yet for the Bunyadi? I’d hurry, if I were you. There’s currently a waiting list of more than 40,000, most of them homo-sexual Camden cyclists, I would guess. The Bunyadi is the country’s first nude restaurant and is, of course, in London. You go in, take all of your clothes off, sit yourself down in the noisome detritus left by the previous diner’s prolapsed rectum, and peruse the menu. Your waiters are not quite nude. They have small coverings to prevent unfortunate accidents. You would not wish to turn around in your seat to order a glass of water only to have your eye poked out by a Polish penis, or your nose immersed in a fragrant Slovak lady garden. But everything else is nude. The food too, according to the proprietors. What does that mean? It means vegan, naturellement. Not just nuts, but berries, too. The restaurant does not use electricity or gas, you see — only elemental things, such as fire. Everything you could possibly want to take you back to primordial times, just after we were slime.
Someone on social media suggested that The Bunyadi was a mere gimmick and very soon the only patrons would be ‘fat fags’. Aside from the repellent homophobia of the terminology, I think this commentator got it wrong. I think it will do very well indeed. It will not be patronised only by homosexual Camden cyclists, as I suggested, although they will be the stalwarts, I would guess. But there are also Hoxton lesbians who run drama workshops which, somewhere down the line, you pay for, and straight women called Roz who are working towards a degree in urban studies at the London School of Economics. And Oli, who is a researcher for the BBC and runs a bullying awareness workshop in his spare time. There will be plenty of customers, then. Londoners.
It is such a good idea that I have half an idea to launch my own even more primitive and infantile establishment. At Trimester Three (hip name, huh?) customers will be stripped and immersed in a large sac of amniotic fluid for an hour or so then ejected through the front door via the offices of a giant ventouse, or perhaps forceps. Upon leaving they will be encouraged to scream and cry. It will be a very real and vibrant experience, I’m sure.
I read about this restaurant while scouring the Guardian for idiocies. There are usually eight or nine before you even get to the op-ed pages, when they multiply like mosquito larvae in a water butt. Next to the story about the nude restaurant was an unarguably more important subject, the criminal investigation into child sexual abuse in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham. This abuse was carried out almost exclusively by Muslim Pakistani men against almost exclusively white and nominally Christian girls. This investigation would last for eight years, we were told, and would cost £30 million. There are already 10,000 leads to be followed up and the rozzers have only just got started. By the time convictions are brought almost every-body involved will be dead, given the life expectancy levels in northern slums.
I suppose we should not be too churlish about the expected length of the investigation, nor indeed the cost; one suspects that the £30 million would easily be dwarfed by the amount of supplementary benefit and housing benefit and the like paid to those involved over the past few decades. The real scandal was the fact that the police only started investigating this issue some 15 or 20 years after it had first been reported to them by local people. All of the authorities and services were paralysed by the fear of seeming ‘racist’, especially so since the only political party attempting to bring this to the notice of the nation at large was the British National Party. And yet we have not learned the lesson, because a similar sort of paralysis still pertains. You will not read or hear the word ‘Muslim’ when the Rotherham abuse (or the nigh-identical Blackburn, Oldham, Oxford abuse etc.) is discussed. This is another politically correct attempt at crowd control of exactly the same kind which prevented the authorities from doing anything in the first place.
The pretence is that the religion of the offenders and suspects had nothing to do with the crimes that were committed. And yet we all know that this is very far from the truth. First and most obviously, the men got away with it for so long precisely because they were Muslim, even if that reason does not indict the belief-system per se. But more importantly, it was the attitude towards women inherent in Islam and, even more so, the attitude towards non-believers, that underpinned the appalling assaults on underage girls. The white girls were not considered equal: they were considered fair game. Not because they were white, but because they were not Muslim.
You may have noticed, incidentally, that during the reporting of the conviction and sentencing of Britain’s most prolific paedophile, a vile creature called Richard Huckle who has just received 22 life sentences for offences committed in Malaysia, there was an atavistic fervour to point out that he was a practising Christian. The inference being — paradoxically — that there is no difference between the religions on this matter. Adherents of both religions are capable of sexually abusing minors. And just as not all Christians are child abusers, nor are all Muslims. Well, sure. But these bland and deluded observations do not exculpate Islam from the crimes that were committed in Rotherham and elsewhere, nor those which, with increasing frequency we hear reported on mainland Europe by Muslim refugees. Sometimes belief systems need to be held to account with just as much stringency as individuals.