Apropos of today’s murderous attack aimed at young girls in Manchester, I just saw this post on my timeline by Brendan O’Neill, Libertarian Editor of SPIKED magazine…..

People telling Manchester not to “give in to hate”. This is always the first response of the chattering class to terrorism: “Oh shit, what will stupid people do in response to this?! Will their inner spite and racism be unleashed??” They seem to fear their fellow citizens, especially the white, working-class ones, more than they fear Islamist murderers. Well, I think a bit of hate, or certainly anger, would be pretty fitting right now. [end].

I haven’t yet read the comments attached to the post. No doubt Brendan will not be castigated by his fan base, but I dare say that much criticism will be forthcoming from other sources, condemning him for fostering hate. In such a now common atmosphere of anguish caused by Islamist activities, certain sections of society prioritize their reaction in the form of warning against hatred carried out by words or deeds. The first reaction is to jump to the defense of innocent Muslims to ward off unjust victimization. Those sections of society range from church spokespeople to Islamic organizations to the loony Left and political leaders.

It is not they, nor the incident itself, which prompts me to plonk a few words down.

Every one of us knows love, even if we don’t bother to define it in its various levels and types. We love. We love people, animals, locations, hobbies, our personal stuff; our gods. Many love their Creator God. Love is so intense, especially when our love is for family and friends. The nub and the rub of this is our reaction to any harm done to those we love so passionately. When our great love is hurt, in pain, unjustly treated or suffers in any way, we endure a natural reaction of sorrow and pain ourselves and want to right the wrong done. The emotional – and natural – reaction towards the cause of our loved ones’ suffering is HATE…. the counterbalance of love.

In our PC age we have succumbed to the re-configured and adjusted meanings and connotations of words and to the value placed on them. “Discrimination” is now negative. “Judging” is now wrong. “Carbon” is our enemy. Enter our word du jour, “Hate”. We Joe and Jill Averages rarely have the propensity to evaluate the indoctrination we have been subjected to, such that we have been directed away from the true meanings and roots and purposes of many terms that once fitted the bill. They fitted the bill because they were sensible and appropriate. “Hate” is entirely appropriate as the natural action/reaction response to whatever has attacked our “Loves”. In a similar way, we may burst into laughter at the incongruous, yell out to relieve pain, jump for joy, clap a good performance. When a loved one is harmed, we are supposed to hate the cause for that is our stimulus to act, just as pain is the stimulus to take remedial action to protect the body from further damage.

What is at stake here is what this hate causes us to do. It ought be remedial action or a saving action. I suggest that the ‘wrong’ involved here would be a reaction of revenge or unjustified violence. Enough communal or collective hatred ought inspire a collective or societal reaction. Obviously, we have a justice system to secure some recompense, but what about ensuring that we learn from any ugly event and to take steps to prevent it from happening in future. I would suggest that this is our failing today and that the hatred should never have been permitted by our leaders to fester to a point of many of us harboring a bigot’s hatred.

The government should become as an embodied lover who protects the loved one, not an entity of appeasing, gutless ideologues who are full of fake ‘reasonableness’.  When it comes to protecting your beloved car, or stepping in to save your pet poodle, or ultimately to protecting your children, somebody will get hurt. Somebody will get physically hurt, or emotionally hurt, or have their rights restricted – necessary to protect one’s own. Sometimes you have to punch someone in the face.




A brief word to introduce this article by Pamela Geller which criticizes Francis’ apparent appeasement of Islam.

Pamela suggests that Francis has departed gravely from the attitude of Pope Benedict in Benedict’s Regensburg Address of 2006. In his address, Benedict cited faith and reason as doctrinal foundations compatible to ‘logos’ – God as the Word; the God which later named Himself “I AM”. Before later investigating how the development, even the deconstruction, of Hellenistic thought as well as Kantian philosophy supported the implications of the very nature of ‘logos’, Benedict cited the failure of Islam’s compatibility to identify truly with the God of Revelation. In essence, he claimed that conversion to faith in the monotheistic God through violence was antipathetic to ‘The Word’ which existed infinitely. [He exemplified the idea by citing a conversation between a 15th Century Byzantine Emperor and a Persian interlocutor, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

The Address can be found here, but is not vital to the crux of this issue:

This small excerpt of Benedict’s address had dire repurcussions, followed by persecution, death, and a demand for an apology and recantation [which, unfortunately, was offered by that Pope]. Since Benedict’s abdication, the words and actions of his successor, Francis, have been overtly appeasing and, as such, troublesome to many Catholics. Do note before reading the Geller piece that the meme of “foot washing” is rather misleading since au fait Catholics understand the liturgical symbolism of this activity and would not see it as appeasement necessarily. And so……

The Vatican Submits to Islam (2006-2016)

isis pope2

ISLAM, Uncategorized

The White Hellmutts.

A regular viewer of Al Jazz, BBC Global, ABC24, SBSnews will have seen ubiquitous coverage of those “brave” men in white helmets pulling survivors from bombing-induced rubble in Aleppo. My antenna picked up a faecal signal and I said earnestly and quietly to myself “Hmm”, or something very close to that. Determined to allay my suspicions that this was suspicious, I managed to plant a bug under the PM’s desk when I was last there for petit fours [ although there were actually three of us in attendance]. Here is the conversation I later recovered after attending No.10 for even pettier deux:

PM:  Look at the polls Humphrey, we’re sunk. The plebians have rattled to our role in supporting Assad’s opposition as well as those Daesh-bag terrorists. That infernal attack on the Syrian Army was supposed to look like a mistake. Then there are all the civilian casualties. Well Sir Humphrey, how do we redeem our pristine image with dead kiddies on the news every night?

SH:  Not to worry PM, they don’t vote now do they? But leave it with me, I’ll hand our image problem to some rather rum chaps at a nifty public relations firm.

PM:  Surely not those idiots that handled our Brexit case?

SH: Good Lord no!  They were behind the Irish Gay Marriage campaign.

Two Days Pass:

SH:  All arranged PM. Our PR  fellows are going to manufacture some heroes while, at the same time, make Vlad and Assad look bad. I say, rather a good bit of rhym….

PM:  Yes, yes, poetic indeed. How did that work out when we tried to blame them for the bombing of aid lorries?

SH:  Forget that PM. These fellows propose that we second a few hundred volunteers to make a display of rescuing survivors from the Russian bombings. Make them stand out for the world to see by issuing them with white helmets. Embed the best photo journalists. I’ll have a little talk to the BBC Chief about his tenure.

PM:  But surely the locals are doing that already? And how do you organize volunteers out of that rabble of camel fu… ah, drivers? Organized as Italian parliament those people.

SH:  Money PM. And none of our business if they’re filmed rehearsing the extraction of a pregnant mother buried under concrete for a week, what?

PM:  But wouldn’t she die without water after so long? I mean….

SH:  A hypothetical PM. We’ll make it two days just for you. And the White Helmets could deliver her baby afterward. What a scene!  Pups. We could have some puppies…..

PM: What Humphrey! Ridiculous. The woman delivering pups. Nobody will fall for that.

SH:  No, no I meant…. Oh, it doesn’t matter.

PM:  You know, it just might work Humphrey old boy. That will be the second brilliant idea I’ve had this week. One thing though Humphrey – there won’t be any terrorists among them I hope.

SH:  Pay no mind to that PM. Even if one or two slipped under our guard, those chaps all look the same; the public will never be attentive enough to match a beheader’s picture to the same man in a white helmet. Never happen, PM.