French Director Finds Islam After Charlie Attacks

Islam; The Religion of Peace


CAIRO – French director Isabelle Matic has announced her decision to revert to Islam on her FaceBook account, making the unexpected announcement only a few days after Charlie Hebdo Paris attacks.

“Today, I passed through the first pillar of Islam. There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet,” Matic said in a message posted on her Facebook page on January 11.

She followed her announcement with a series of posts in which she thanked Moroccan actor Hicham Bahloul for announcing her decision on Moroccan papers.

“Between the massacre at the premises of Charlie Hebdo and other event that have followed: I became a Muslim,” Matic wrote.In another message, she described how she took the decision and its effect on her beliefs in freedom of expression.

“Am I still for freedom of expression for all and Charlie Hebdo in particular?! Yes,” Matic wrote yesterday.

“With regard to…

View original post 299 more words

Non-Progressive “Progress” Evil Spreads to the Natural History Museum

There are good and bad in both the old and the new. Many things new are advantageous and many things old are worth preserving, yet Britain, America and most of the lands of the world are currently cursed by people who think all change is good, who always promote new ways over old ones and who seek to destroy each and every tradition and taboo. This is nothing sort of a disease of irrationality,  one if the most ironic symptoms of this disease is that sufferers believe that only those people infected with this disease are rational and that all other people are “irrational and sentimental fools”.

Against the wishes of the public the Museum of Natural History in London is planning to replace the well loved 117 year old diplodocus skeleton reproduction (popularly known as Dippy) with a sad and boring skeleton of a blue whale who was murdered back in the days when the British were still happy with the idea of slaughtering these intelligent, beautiful, giants of the sea.

Dippy, who is the icon of the museum, is a plaster of Paris hero who has featured in well loved films from One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing to the more recentPaddington and has been at the heart of many children’s visits to the museum since he was placed near the main entrance in 1938.

So why would they do such an unpopular and self destructive thing?

Well they say that by casting Dippy into the wilderness and replacing him with the the bones of this poor old whale they can better convey the “cutting-edge science that goes on at the museum. I must be missing something because I can only see the most tenuous connection here. In fact its nonsense – diplodocus or whale, both can be equally relevant to cutting edge science.

Trying a different tack for the justification of something that is probably just a whim, Museum director Sir Michael Dixon eloquently has said “The very resources on which modern society relies are under threat. Species and ecosystems are being destroyed faster than we can describe them or even understand their significance.” which is all noble and true.

He has also saidThe blue whale serves as a poignant reminder that while abundance is no guarantee of survival, through our choices, we can make a real difference. There is hope.”…

OK fair enough, but how do we get from here to I know lets the bones of a victim of whaling on the ceiling to brighten the entrance hall up?”

…and why do we also hear the totally different spin of needing to get rid of popular and well loved Dippy because he doesn’t reflect the fact that we are hip, cool and “cutting edge?”

Dippy is an old friend to many millions of visitors to the Natural History Museum. Although a reproduction, he is an exhibit who has helped millions of visitors get a good idea of the amazing proportions of a diplodocus. He is more aesthetic by far than a whale carcass or other alternative dinosaurs. In many people’s mind’s Dippy is the symbol of the Natural History Museum. In his many roles (including symbol, decoration, exhibit, fascinator of children etc) he is much better than all but a few possible challengers and he is certainly much better than alien looking whale bones. If its not broken don’t fix it, and Dippy is certainly not broken – he does his job just fine.

The Queen in a Council House?

Beware weird rant ahead…

The British variant of the Green Party has some really good ideas. As well as seeking to promote a sustainable society, it is against the unfair exploitation of workers and iniquitous capitalist unfairness, it supports renationalisation of stuff that should not have been sold off in the first place, but all this comes at a cost because the Green Party is full of Marxists and crypto-Marxists who are infused with virulent anti-traditionalism and the destructive mentality of class war.

If they get into power they will probably be rather like a visitor who bakes you cakes, knits you a jumper, chases off a burglar and does all sorts of good stuff and then they go and spoil it all by stealing your neighbour’s car, throwing stones at the nice old lady who lives in the big house across the road and poking you in the eyes.

Not that they have much chance of ever winning an election, but assuming they did then the cost of the good things that they offer could well be for everything good about Britain to be replaced by the revolting blandness of people with the IKEA aesthetic. Disconnected from the archetypes, quality world images and soul of the real Britain they would probably inflict a green version of the Napoleonic nightmare (the modernist plague that has cursed most of Western Europe for so long) onto this island.

A woman who has been privately described as “by far the biggest wart on the nose of the Green Party” is its ubermeister, Natalie Bennet, God bless her. This woman (once described as a “jumped-up marsupial“) has revealed her plans to abolish the British Monarchy, which has long served its purpose very well, and still does. Indeed this would be Robespierre is so magnanimous that she says that the Queen can live in a council house.

Bennet, an Australian who has been in the UK for all of 16 years, has also come out with other controversial statements. According to her it should be legal to be a member of al-Qaeda or ISIS in the UK – so long as you don’t call for or get involved in actual terrorism (bizarrely she imagines that there are members of ISIS or al-Qaeda who are involved in neither of these things).

What is it with Australians in British politics? First we have had to put up with everybody’s favourite ultra-capitalist, smutmongering-republican Rupert Murdoch for several decades and now we have to put up with listening to this lady (who has been described as a “big-mouthed republican kangaroo” by anonymous sources) too. Is this some sort of pincer attack from the Australian anti-monarchists?

mmmm I can almost imagine….imagine…. through the swirling mists of time…

...some time in the early1980‘s…  some fancy beach house near Sydney…

…looking in through a large glass window…

…inside the looping rhythms of Strine smalltalk…

      …a clique of wealthy Australian republicans sitting round…

…a collection of mining magnates, odd bods and carpetbaggers…

all dressed like 1970’s golfers… tasteless pastel colours and over sized collars…

…the airy open plan room dominated by the uglyliciousness of nouveau riche luxury

…fancy brown rugs so thick and large that if they were washed whole undiscovered species could be lost…

  …dark coloured spirits consumed on on the rocks from lead crystal decanters… clouds of cigar smoke rise and swirl…

…conversation dies down…the time has come for the serious business at hand and the evil ring leader stands up…

“gentlemen, it is high time that we destroyed the bloody royal family at its roots and castrated the Queen”

…one of the more intelligent yet literal minded plotters raises his eyebrows at the finer details of this proposition,

but undeterred the ringleader carries on…

“for too long we, the elite of Australia*, have had to play second fiddle to these bloody Pommy Kraut Royals, but no more!”      

“I present to you our most dangerous and trusted agents!” – 

agent codename “Boobies Newspaper!”

…and agent codename “Loudmouth Kangaroo!”...

….a button is pressed and Rupert Murdoch and Natalie Bennet rise up through a trapdoor carrying nunchuks,

…both are wearing catwoman style suits festooned with throwing stars and poison darts…

…as they look around and with a proud and evil glint in their eyes the ringleader continues…

“first we’ll send in our bad cop Rupert here to soften up their brains and loosen their morals for a while”…

“Then when we’ve really messed up their whole society and turned their political system into a joke

we’ll send in the lovely Natalie to play good cop…. and under the guise of saving the world she’ll finish them off”


…an evil chuckle emits from the ringleader’s over tanned face.

It’s the sort of chuckle that is reserved for days upon which you overwhelm a young challenger

by announcing against all expectations that your Deathstar is fully operational.

…after a few seconds of awestruck silenceapplause! and the sounds of champagne bottles popping…

  …in preparation for an ill thought out mixing of the grape with the grain…

…a beehived woman (mrs evil ringleader) arrives on cue…

…briefly invading the male space

…to wheel in a gold-effect, hotel-style hostess tray, fully laden with prawn cocktails

The swirling mists of time (or of the over active imagination) pass… and I return to non-metaphorical reality…

*of course these mischievous plotters were in fact the exact opposite of the real elite of Australia – the true elite of Australia of course being those very few real Australians who still live in the bush, happily munching on widjetty grubs and tubers, happily playing on didgeridoos and with boomerangs and happily doing no harm to anyone. 

             It may sometimes not always sound like it, but I hope and pray that God blesses everyone mentioned, guides them (and myself) straight and gives them them best in this life and the hereafter. : )

Rupert Murdoch

Today it has come to light that Rupert Murdoch and family are loosing their grip on their News Corporation empire. Murdoch chum, the controversial zillionpontillionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal sold most of his 6.6% share and made a new shareholder revolt a likelihood. An earlier failed shareholder revolution was lead by the Nathan Cummings Foundation with the goal of establishing a democratic structure at News Corp and to end “the gerrymander” by which Rupert Murdoch controls 40 percent of votes when he owns only around 13 per cent of the company stock.

So who is actually is Rupert Murdoch? … Indeed some words, names and phrases are almost cosmically linked together just as the word Morc and Mindy, “Fish and Chips“, Laurel and Hardy, “Salt and Pepper“, “Soap and Water“, “Bat and Ball“, “Nut and Bolt“, “Knife and Fork“, “Morecambe and Wise” and of course (as a brief search of the internet will reveal) “Rupert Murdoch” and “Evil. It is the last word pairing that I shall look at here.

If you circulate in the right circles you may often hear people write or say things like… Rupert Murdoch “has spoiled the media”, or Rupert Murdoch “has managed to replace real journalism with a toxic mixture of sexual and violent titillation”, or Rupert Murdoch is “evil incarnate” or Rupert Murdoch “is the Devils publisher” etc… But are these people right? Maybe this guy is just being maligned? If you watch interviews with him he just seems like a soft spoken, bald, bespectacled old man. There is even a gentleness about him and his slightly old fashioned Australian accent gives hints of some sort of humility. Maybe there is something wrong here maybe he’s just misunderstood? Sadly not.

  • This is the man who created a media revolution in which real news and real journalism were replaced with sex, violence and other forms of titillation.
  • This is the man whose newspapers subtly promoted the destructive and iniquitous philosophy of Neo-Liberalism to the world and worked to undermine social democracy and civilized social policies.
  • This is the man whose henchmen and henchwomen got caught in the News of the World phone hacking scandal – a sorry story that involved everything from illegal phone hacking and bribery to the mysterious death of a whistle-blower.
  • This is the man who destroyed Fleet Street, which had long been the heart of British journalism. Why? So he could castrate the unions that would have stopped him mistreating his workers in Britain.
  • This is the man who has distorted British politics for several decades with the power of his news papers. He used distortions and scare tactics to con the public and make the real Labour Party unelectable. To gain power Tony Blair became a Murdoch pet. Blair’s “Labour Party” became a modified continuation of economic Thatcherism allied to an unfortunate policy of extreme social liberalism.
  • This is the man whose henchmen defamed the dead at the Sheffield Hillsborough tragedy – blaming the football fans killed in the crush – rather than the policemen who failed to unlock the gates that would have saved their lives.

Yet in truth there are plenty of people much worse than he. Its just that when someone possess so much power to shape the opinions of the masses – when they back the interests of the few against the many in so many different ways, then this is a big problem. Maybe he is like he is because he was not tickled enough as a child. Maybe if there was an international campaign to tickle Rupert Murdoch then it would heal and sooth his injured inner child and result in his outer child, I mean his outer adult, becoming more humane and more concerned with people as a whole, not just his zillionquadrillionare chums.

Virginia Roberts – Abused Yes – Prostitute Yes – Slave No.

What a sorry, dirty and sordid story follows…

Virginia Roberts. Ever since she propelled herself to fame with her historical accusations I have taken an interest in her story…and I find myself having a good look at her photographs, and you can’t always judge a book by its cover, but to me her personal cover (otherwise known as her face) has a faint aroma of snakes.

Jerry Epstein. A rich financier who ended up in prison. A man whose looks are slightly reminiscent of a younger Bruce Fortsythe, yet without the moustache or the sweetness. He used to like fornicating with teenage girls. It seems that most (maybe all) of them had willingly thrust themselves into the horrible world of underage prostitution, lured probably by its financial rewards.

Jerry Epstein is not, as far as I know an actual rapist, apart from in the imagination of the American legal system and it seems that all of the girls who he misused were quite big enough to know better. He was not the only rich man to behave like this, but he was one of the ones who got caught, who did not have the influence to get himself out of trouble.

There is no reason to doubt that Virginia Roberts was one of Jerry Epstein’s underage prostitutes, but stories go far beyond that…For example she has said ““I would offer” other young girls “money to come meet my gentlemen friend and tell them I’d show them how to massage”. Thus if she is telling the truth she reveals herself not only as a victim but also as a predator.

When she went on to say that she “never brought back a girl that ever said no, or didn’t want to participate in an erotic massage” she is trying to free herself from blame, but it doesn’t work. She has revealed that she procured, groomed and trained underage girls so that they could be abused

Roberts has a photo of herself with Prince Andrew, but so do thousands of other people although most of these don’t claim that they have had sex with him.

Prince Andrew, a long time teetotaler, a man whose Buckingham Palace suite homes a 4ft teddy bear, a naval veteran who risked his life in the Falklands war, a patron of Fight for Sight, of Defeating Deafness, of the Commonwealth Society for the Deaf, the Chairman of the NSPCC Full Stop Campaign, and of the Sea Cadets, a man who has flown all over the world promoting British trade, a nice, fishing, golf playing man whose public profile is so down to earth that he was once nearly refused entry to Buckingham Palace by guards who did not recognize him.

As already stated Virginia Roberts claims to have had a sexual relationship with Prince Andrew (first in London, then later she said it had occurred in the Caribbean and New York as well). It is of course physically possible, but I seriously doubt it and even if it had happened (which it probably didn’t) there is no reason to assume that Prince Andrew knew that she was considered underage.

A Palace spokesman has said “It is emphatically denied that HRH The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. The allegations made are false and without any foundation…” and to be honest I would take Prince Andrew’s word over the word of this self admitted procurer, trainer and groomer of underage prostitutes.

It’s not unknown for young American females to fantasize about British Princes. It does not seem impossible that Roberts was overtaken by the Disney princess fantasy upon meeting the Prince whilst she was hanging round Epstein. Maybe she fantasized about it to the point of believing it – yet she didn’t get her dream and her feelings turned sour (I used to know a woman who was convinced she was perpetually carrying prince Charles’ baby, she also used to believe that American invasion of Britain was imminent).

The Roberts family has already had to recant their claim that Virginia had met the Queen. Thank God that this young woman (variously described as a “serial liar”, a “compulsive liar” and “fantasist” in online comments) didn’t get a photo of herself with the Queen or she may have taken given the story a bizarre new twist.

Even if we imagine that Roberts an Prince Andrew did have a one night stand as she claims – she was 17 years old and in every way a woman at the time she claims – according to biology, common sense and English Law. The only way she was not a woman was in American Law and as Prince Andrew is obviously subject to Diplomatic immunity English Law would probably be more relevant even if the story had happened in America.

Indeed… even if this fully grown and mature looking young woman (whose photo gives the impression that she would have stood a fair chance against Prince Andrew in a cage fight) and the recently divorced, wealthy and young looking Prince Andrew had engaged in a one night stand, would that really have been anything controversial in today’s London?

Tens of thousands similar one night stands happen in London every Friday and Saturday night, many of them between men who would pass for the younger Prince Andrew and women who would pass for the younger Virginia Roberts. Now I am not condoning it, but I cannot deny that it is considered “normal” in this day and age.

I maybe be getting her completely wrong, but I don’t find it easy to believe much of what Virginia Roberts says. I have the distinct impression that she is a young woman who got mixed up with Jerry Epstein (manipulator, pimp and possible blackmailer that he was) through her own free choices and later felt disgusted about the whole situation.

It is easy to imagine that she retold the story of her Epstein experiences to herself and others (over and over again) and during this process I would be pretty sure that the original events were gradually embroidered more and more, growing in the process. People often tend to believe their own historical embroidery. Even if they don’t believe it the fact that they tell important others in their lives means that they generally become thoroughly invested in it (to admit the embroidery would be to admit being and embroiderer and to loose face). Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect not.

Virginia Roberts was quite reasonably angry at being used (in actuality) like a peace of meat by Jerry Epstein – because whatever modern people say – sex belongs in the safe bounds of marriage.

I may be wrong but I strongly suspect that this anger could have been the powerhouse that could have led to revenge fantasies not only against Epstein but also against his friends (including Prince Andrew, the lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell and various others against whom she makes salacious claims. Ironically one of the few of Einstein’s friends to escape her accusations was randy old Bill Clinton.

In her revenge she has gone so far as to claim that she was a “sex slave” however nothing that Roberts says at all shows any real evidence of any type of slavery. She was not chained or locked up, she wasn’t kidnapped or tortured, she was neither deprived of her liberty nor was she brainwashed or hooked on highly addictive substances as a means of control. So why would anyone use this term?

One answer would be a publicity seeker who wants to make money by selling interviews and through a scandalous book, maybe a sequel too on how they cleverly recovered and got their life together… Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect not.

In Britain and Belgium it is pretty clear that there have been (probably still are) organized groups that abuse and murder young boys and girls. These poor innocent victims were real sex slaves and when Virginia Roberts describes how she was a “sex slave” she insults their memory, or rather the lack of it.

As for the “British” press which gives this story credence and publicity with treasonous glee, presenting every claim of Virginia Roberts about Prince Andrew in a way that makes the public believe it to be factual – what can we expect from a bunch of low minded newspapers that are mostly associated with horrible old republican Rupert Murdoch?

As for the large section of the chattering classes which has responded to the accusations with equal delight (and an automatic assumption of Prince Andrew’s guilt) – what can we expect from from a bunch of people whose brains have been addled by the twin corrosive effects of too much alcohol, too little religion and degenerate cultural-Marxism.  

Terrorist Toddlers: PREVENT, Neoconservativism, and the Impending British Neo-Stasi State

A very disturbing theme for British Muslims. Basically how would British Christians, Jews, Hindus or Atheists feel if they learned that their children were being monitored for signs of “extremism” from the age of three? When these sort of things are already on the table how it makes many wonder how long before the yellow star (crescent in this case) and the concentration camp?

This is a good article, but re-blogging it does not mean that I agree with all views on the blog from which it originates.



Quite a furore has been stirred by proposals which check for “extremism” in toddlers (yes, read that sentence again – it is absolutely ridiculous). According to the new PREVENT-on-steroids Strategy, teaching staff must have training which gives them knowledge and confidence to identify children as young as three, at risk of being drawn into terrorism and challenge “extremist ideas”. They must also know where and how to refer children to the Channel panel for “deradicalisation”. Though Home Office likes to placate the people with the spin that they do not expect “unnecessary intrusion into family life”, a proper examination of the reveals otherwise.  As Asim Qureshi of CAGE notes,

“the CTS Bill is presented as a consent based system where those… under 18… [must obtain] consent of their parents. However, the devil is in the detail, and where the consent is not gained, then the panels established to…

View original post 2,124 more words

Saudi Has a New King

King Abdullah has passed away and his half brother King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud his risen to the Saudi throne. It was Salman (no connection to Ron Salmon of the SNP) who oversaw Riyadh’s development into the modern city of sky scrapers that it is.

King Salman was governor of Riyadh province for half a century. He was more recently the Saudi minister for defense. He is both a philanthropist and a promoter of philanthropy. He is a figure who is expected to focus on stability and security rather than reformism. Indeed he is closer to the Ulema (religious scholars) of the Kingdom than his predecessor as.

King Salman has been considered to be a natural diplomat, yet he is also capable of taking direct action and he  has previously directed the Saudi military when it launched air strikes against the Un-“Islamic State” terrorists in 2014.

His earlier life he supported the Afghan resistance against Soviet invasion (giving up to $25,000,000 per month at the height of the conflict). He also supported the Bosnian people against the murderous Serbian aggression and genocide that was inflicted upon them.

King Salman’s sons include Prince Sultan who was the first Muslim astronaut, Prince Faysal the governor of Madinah and Prince Khaled, a fighter pilot who has seen action against the Un-“Islamic State” terrorists. However, the new Saudi crown prince is King Salman’s half-brother Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, the youngest of the (living) sons of King Abdulaziz.
Muslims around the world are hoping the King Salman will undo recent policies that have lead to the wiping out of the architectural heritage of the Hijaz and that historical sites relating to the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to the revelation of the Holy Qur’an may be restored (not as sites for idolatry but as museums where those who love Islam may gain an insight and a closeness to the era of the Last Revelation).