Saturday, February 09, 2013


Led Zeppelin with Kashmir. From the album Physical Graffiti (1975).

The ultimate Led Zeppelin song.

Michael Penn with No Myth.

From his debut album March (1989).

Good night.



This article dates from October 2011 and was actually a dormant post I never came about to flesh out. It only appears now because I added the 'De Standaard' flag and wanted to check out if the query worked, for which I scrambled a couple of posts with the De Standaard Watch label. This concept post happened to catch my eye so here it is.

And now that we are at it, I'll elaborate a bit on it. So in October 2011 a De Standaard editor, Joel Ceulaer, a lefty nutcase (an oxymoron of course) who never fails to flaunt His Moral Superiority over the Flemish peasants of the famed center right undercurrent in Belgium's northern half, wrote an article praising Mohammed Boulif and his efforts to get Belgian banks interested in the virtues of Sharia Banking. The title is an enlarged caption by Boulif: 'FINE PRINT IS FORBIDDEN IN ISLAM'. 'Would banking according to sharia rules have prevented the crisis?'. Golly it might. According to Joel Ceulaer that is.


Yes yes yes yes yes. Well, fine print may be forbidden in islam but fooling filthy infidels is not. Leftozoid nutbag Ceulaer is prolly so enamored with the amazing aspects of sharia banking that he's momentarily forgetting that Mr Boulif was a couple of years ago Head of Belgium's Muslim Executive, the official institution (financed with dough from you guess it infidel peasant pigs aka Belgian taxpayers). And he's also forgetting that that institution was so singularly ineffectual and corrupt that it had to be disbanded a couple of times. Not to mention that it contained a fair number of highly suspect personages (according to State Security). Well, Mr Boulif unrightfully kept pocketing a year's salary AFTER the dissolution of the Muslim Executive, a fact the then Minister of Justice, Laurette Onkelinckx (PS), had to admit publicly. At the relevant press conference where this item was brought up, she vowed that 'Boulif would pay it back'. I wonder if that ever happened, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Hey, stealing from infidels is indeed not in any islamic fine print: it's written black on white in large characters in their holy book, with recommendations. Not that Ceulaer noticed.


Thursday, February 07, 2013


The BBC, that godforsaken snake pit of insane alternativos, closet-or-not-so-closet jihadists, and communists, has forced a playwright, author of a piece about honor killings, to omit a line about honor killings so as not to stigmatize 'the entire muslim community'. When you read the actual line, it's laughable. Or so it would be, were it not that it is so utterly tragic:


"Bhatti spoke about the changes made to the play at Tuesday’s Index On Censorship conference, which discusses artistic freedom of expression in the UK. As reported in The Independent, Bhatti explained the controversial line: “At the end, a character says: ‘There is so much pressure in our community, to look right and to behave right.’ The compliance department came back and said, ‘we don’t want to suggest the entire Muslim community condones honour killings.’”

Bhatti continued, “It’s an extraordinary and awful situation. They said the lines were offensive but they absolutely were not. We live in a fear-ridden culture.” Bhatti said that the line was “a crucial part of the story”, and that the BBC said it could be kept in if she found factual evidence of community pressure resulting in an honour killing.

A Radio 4 spokesperson commented: “This is a hard-hitting drama about the realities of honour killing in Britain. A single line in the script could be taken to infer that the pressure and motivation to commit such a crime in a family comes from the wider Muslim community, potentially misrepresenting majority British Muslim attitudes to honour killing. Gupreet Kaur Bhatti was asked to amend this line in the normal editorial process of script development.”

I'm pretty sure that if I would pull that Radio 4 spokesperson's pants down - and if it's a man (or at least if the creature was born that way) - I would not find two testicles, just a lil' sausage which now and then leaks some pipi.




Tuesday, February 05, 2013


It is clear that conservatism is in the ropes on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which should not be, because basically all problems besetting our societies are the handiwork of the left, and it's actually US, Conservatives, who hold the keys to righten things - fiscal responsibility, moral values, work ethics. The really HUGE problem seems to be cultural, in that the lackeys of the left in the media and the educational system win hands down the 'effort' (one cannot even call it an effort) to 'win the hearts and the minds of the people'. Indeed, leftist nonsense is 'cool'. It's 'good'. It does not matter what the results are, if only it feels 'good'. Children are being raised to believe, no, to take it for granted, that being left, progressive, is 'GOOD'. By contrast, being right, conservative, is 'BAD'. Better, 'EVIL'.

Melanie Phillips has some interesting thoughts to share about the topic:

"The agony of the US Republicans, engulfed by an existential crisis since the second term victory of Barack Obama, reminds me so much of the UK Conservatives’ similar crisis after the accession of Tony Blair to power in 1997.

That victory ushered in a three-term Labour hegemony. The Tories, aghast at the inversion of the natural order by which they assumed they had a divine right to rule, looked in bewildered mortification upon the upstart Blair whom they found it impossible to dislodge -- and arrived at precisely the wrong conclusion about both conservatism and British society. It was a fundamental error that I believe the Conservative Party is still making – and if they aren’t careful, the US Republicans will fall into the same trap.

The root of the error was to misunderstand both why the Tories lost power in 1997 and the appeal of Tony Blair. They looked at Blair-- young, telegenic, hip, with his jeans and his guitar and his ‘hey man’ and his ‘I feel your pain’ -- and they were torn between thinking he was a cynical charlatan and alternatively that he won power because he was in tune with Britain’s shift towards a more caring, sharing, emoting, tolerant, liberal society.

Wrong on all counts. Blair won above all because the Tories had made themselves unelectable. The government of John Major, which took over after the reginacide of Margaret Thatcher, had become a national joke, an embarrassment, a synonym for sleaze, arrogance and supreme incompetence. Moreover, a number of Tory MPs just looked ... well, totally weird. The whole lot of them were viewed as totally beneath contempt and wholly unfit for government.

Blair saw his opportunity – but having concluded about his own party that its left-wing positions had made it unelectable, he took a leaf out his friend Bill Clinton’s book and triangulated his message. While remaining committed under the radar to extreme, indeed revolutionary left-wing positions – the erosion of sovereignty by closer union with the EU, mass third world immigration, multiculturalism, gay rights -- he sent out the (misleading) message that he was instinctively on the side of Middle Britain and would put right what worried them most. This was above all intolerable levels of crime and disorder and poor education standards, which in turn stood proxy for a feeling that society was breaking down...."


Also, check out Mark Steyn's column Who are we?. He's onto the same thing.