Milo v Muhammad - Seriously?

One of the most controversial pundits to be given space in the controlled media in recent years is self-styled dangerous faggot Milo Yiannopoulos. While he is spot on with his critiques of the insane totalitarian ideology of third wave feminism, his attacks on Islam and his endorsement of the phony gates of Vienna narrative are sorely misguided, and it is difficult to argue that this ignorance of the world’s third great religion is anything but wilful.

One of the things Yiannopoulos says he worries about is the attitude of Moslems to homosexuals, and he stresses here that he means ordinary Moslems rather than the Saudi brand or the fanatical Islamists of ISIS. What are the facts? Before answering that question, perhaps we should ask a different question, namely, if you were/are the father of a young boy, which of these two scenarios would you rather see for your son: bowing down in the mosque, or bending over in the bathhouse? Women tend to be more sympathetic to the faults of their offspring than men, but no mother worthy of the name would rather her son grow up homosexual anymore than she would rather see him grow up confined to a wheelchair or suffering from cystic fibrosis.

Male homosexuality gave the world AIDS; Islam gave it algebra. This really is a no-brainer. Male homosexuality is a far greater threat to the West than this supposedly anti-Western jihad. Now back to the question, what do ordinary Moslems think about homosexuals? Here is white convert Hamza Yusuf explaining how Islam really deals with homosexuality; Milo can drop his trousers for his black friends all he likes in the privacy of his own bedroom, where there will not be the four witnesses required to grab him by the scruff of his neck and drag him into a Sharia court, but the moment he attempts to bring his perversion into the public space, that is when the mullahs will come for him, that’s if the mothers of his sexual conquests don’t get him first; most blacks are just as revolted by homosexuality as Moslems.

When he discusses the chimera of sexism in the Islamic world, Yiannopoulos wants to have his cake and eat it. On the one hand he says women are oppressed by Islam, yet on the other hand when he tackles the sisterhood about their nonsense on gender roles and the education of girls, he points out rightly that while in the West, very few women take STEM subjects, in Bangladesh and indeed in other Islamic nations, there is no shortage of women engineering graduates and the like. Clearly he is confusing the innate modesty of Moslem women, and the high esteem in which motherhood is held, with Islamic dress codes and the segregation of the sexes. If the West had not removed barriers to sexual segregation, we would not now be plagued with spurious allegations of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and in particular false allegations of historical sexual offences, including rape.

Finally, while like the rest of us he deplores the grotesque scenes of women being violated en masse on the streets of Cologne as happened during the 2016 New Year celebrations, is it right to equate this with Islam? Let’s put this another way, why do brazen sexual assaults of this nature not happen under Sharia? Because in Malaysia, rapists are caned, and in Iran, the sexual violation of a woman can be capital.

So what is the problem if not Islam? Does anyone believe the recent and ongoing mass invasion of Europe would provoke such controversy if the invaders were white? Of course not. This isn’t about religion, it’s about race, in particular white guilt and the hysteria generated by decades of left wing brainwashing.

All mainstream politicians and pundits are terrified of speaking about it for fear of being branded racist, so instead they use facile arguments about foreign workers claiming benefits in the UK and other European countries, or similar issues. Now there is certainly a security issue here, but the simple fact is that no white European in his right mind wants millions more non-white immigrants the same way the Thais don’t want immigrants from different racial backgrounds and neither do the Japanese; the big difference is they don’t suffer from the same kind of guilt and Marxist agitators as Europe. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help these people, but the idea that millions of them should be granted asylum in Europe is a step too far. Incidentally, Moslems are also helping these refugees, as Yiannopolous surely he knows.

In conclusion, which would you rather live in, a society in which homosexuals are kept in the closet, or one in which they are free to spew their poison over not only the adult population but especially the young? A society in which the social scene revolves around alcohol with all the associated evils: drunkenness, violence, sexual violence, ladette culture, cirrhosis of the liver...or one in which alcohol has no place or is at least very restricted? These are just two of the alternatives offered by Islam, and for many people, including non-believers, they are better alternatives to the madness we have at present.

Don’t You Grow Up To Be A Pig

When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up? Perhaps an actor or an astronaut, perhaps a rock star or a famous author. Of the attainable goals, you might have wanted to become a police officer, probably a detective. There are reasons for this, the profession has been glamourised in literature and on film, and there is a certain attraction about carrying a gun. For girls, well, you get to boss guys around for a change, and that can’t be bad, can it? Actually, it can.

We hear a lot in the modern world about privilege: the vacuous white privilege; the ludicrous male privilege...even so, most people realise that when it exists, privilege derives mostly from money. Celebrity brings privilege too, but this can be a double-edged benefit. Likewise in countries like Britain where there is an hereditary ruling class, there can be a certain privilege in social status or birth. The police have a unique privilege, the privilege money can’t buy.

Unless you have experienced this, you can’t really understand it. There is a big difference between the American police and the British police. The Americans are psychopaths; the British are cunts. There are reasons for this. In the States, the Constitution places severe restrictions on such things as searching property and people. The American police can’t even take a suspect’s DNA without good reason. On the other hand, the American police are armed routinely, and are prone to shoot first and ask questions later. They are also prone to use violence, especially against people lower down the food chain including blacks, the homeless, and even on occasion women.

Although police violence is not unknown in the UK, it is usually confined to public order situations, and is generally much less intense than in the US. This hasn’t always been the case, as for example the murder of Liddle Towers back in the 1970s illustrates, but today you are very unlikely to get beaten to a pulp by the British police. On the other hand, there are few people who are so dishonest. Although they will plant evidence only very occasionally, they will suppress exculpatory evidence, verbal up witnesses to give correct evidence, and place absurd interpretations on even the most prosaic of actions.

This is what is known as noble cause corruption, a behaviour that is of course anything but noble. It is known more accurately as bent for the job; the other type – bent for self – is entirely different, and in general is not tolerated, but acting as judge and jury to fit up some individual who has been judged undesirable is a different matter.

All this is done with the collusion of prosecuting lawyers, magistrates, and even judges. In this age of near total surveillance we have many examples of this, and there are few better or more outrageous examples than the scandalous case of the treatment of Monica Contreras, in an American courtroom. Check out this short video, and in particular the behaviour of the judge who literally looked the other way. Patricia Doninger was fired over her complicity in this incident, and the gutsy victim was eventually awarded a $200,000 settlement. Now ask yourself what would have happened if this had not been recorded; most likely Monica Contreras would have been written off as a head case or would have found herself in a criminal court, perhaps even losing the custody of her daughter. This is the privilege money can’t buy.

Here is another, arguably more shocking example, this time Ronald Jones, a 62 year old man, is set upon by a group of uniformed thugs for no good reason, beaten up, charged with imaginary crimes, and thrown into gaol for 15 months.

An excellent or rather an appalling example of this sort of behaviour from the UK was the death of Ian Tomlinson, who was assaulted by a police officer in broad daylight, from behind, and in full view of numerous witnesses, including unfortunately for PC Harwood, someone who filmed the incident. Ian Tomlinson was an alcoholic, a man down on his luck who had been reduced to living in a hostel, one of the great unwashed, a person of no consequence, indeed the sort of person society is better off without. He was also a very sick man, and an assault which would have left most men of his age bruised and angry led to his death within minutes. Harwood could not of course have foreseen that, but because of the victim’s low social status, this wanton assault was bracketed as bent for the job, and a cover up was instituted. This involved bringing in a tame (or bent) pathologist to fudge the post mortem examination, but thanks to that mobile phone video, the genie was out of the bottle. Again, as with the Monica Contreras and Ronald Jones incidents, consider what would have happened but for the film.

Now ask yourself this question, do you want to engage in that sort of behaviour against strangers - people who have done you no harm - or even have the power to do so? If you answer yes, you should seek psychiatric help. If you don’t, welcome to the human race. Nobody has to grow up to be a pig.