Friday, May 10, 2013


Foo Fighters first, with Come Alive....

... in this case, serving as the 'soundtrack', if you will, to the climbing of Pen-y-Ghent in the Yorkshire Dales by those gentlemen. Hopefully, I will be doing that crocodile-shaped 'mountain' (only 694 metres) too this summer - as a kind of warmup effort for two Munros I'd like to climb in Scotland. See how my back, which has been suffering badly from my condition, will be able to cope.

Must be the first time ever for Toto on DB.

Rosanna, from the 1982 album Toto IV.

Good night.


Thursday, May 09, 2013


On April 30, The Gatestone Institute's Soeren Kern had an excellent article titled 'Belgium erasing Christianity for Islam'. This is how it starts:

"...Under the guise of letting go of the Christian holidays, this text provides Muslims with a waiver to add Islamic holidays…. Six Belgian senators introduced a draft resolution in the Belgian Parliament that would make "Islamophobia" a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment. A person would be guilty if he "considers Islam to be violent, threatening or supportive of terrorism…" or "considers Islam to be a political ideology, used for political and military purposes to establish it hegemony." If passed, the law would pose a devastating blow to the exercise of free speech in Belgium."

Kern's column first dwells on typical multiculti insanity of which you may already have heard here and there, such as the efforts of (primarily) socialist politicians to have the names of typical Christian holidays scrapped in favor of names which are more 'senstive' to our wonderful cultural enrichers (Winter Vacation instead of Christmas Holiday and such), the replacement last winter of the Christmas Tree on Brussels' Grote Markt by an atrocity of steel tubes etc etc etc. But towards the bottom section he focuses again on the effort of six senators, three of whom are muslim (Quelle surprise!!!) to introduce a law that would make islamophobia punishable:

"...The survey, which was published by the daily newspaper Gazet van Antwerpen on April 19, shows that 60% of Muslim youth believe that they will never be integrated into Belgian society. One in three of those surveyed say that he or she has been discriminated against at school, and one in five say they have been discriminated against at work. More than 50% say they have been victims of racism. Although 93% of those surveyed have Belgian citizenship, 42% of them say they consider themselves to be foreigners.

The results are virtually unchanged from a similar survey conducted in 2005, and imply that years of government efforts to make Belgium more multicultural have done nothing to change the minds of Muslim youth.

According to the Flemish Minister for Integration, Geert Bourgeois, Muslim youth should work harder and complain less. "That so many young people feel discriminated against and do not feel accepted means that our society still has a lot of work to do. It's actually an 'us-them' story. We as a society can and should still make an extra effort, but conversely, Muslim youth should do more as well. Perhaps an inverted research shows that we just think that young Muslims do not belong because they do not want to belong," Bourgeois said.

If Belgian multiculturalists have their way, however, asking Muslims to do more to integrate into Belgian society may soon become a criminal offense.

In February, six Belgian senators (three of whom are Muslim) introduced a draft resolution in the Belgian Federal Parliament that would make "Islamophobia" a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment.

The draft text -- which, among other objectives, seeks to equate "Islamophobia" with anti-Semitism -- is audacious in scope and if passed would pose a devastating blow to the exercise of free speech in Belgium.

According to the authors of the resolution, a person would be guilty of Islamophobia if he or she:

Considers Islam to be a single monolithic bloc, closed and static, incapable of adapting to new situations;
Considers Islam to be separate and "different," devoid of having any aims or shared values ​​with other cultures, not influenced by other cultures and not influencing other cultures;
Considers Islam to be inferior to the West, to be barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist;
Considers Islam to be violent, threatening and supportive of terrorism, actively engaged in a 'clash of civilizations';
Considers Islam to be a political ideology, used for political and military purposes to establish its hegemony;
Rejects out of hand criticisms made by Islam of 'the West';
Shows hostility towards Islam to justify discrimination and social exclusion of Muslims;
Accepts hostility toward Muslims as natural and normal.
This definition of Islamophobia, which is based on a 1997 report published by the London-based Runnymede Trust, would effectively outlaw any critical discussion of Islam in Belgium under the guise of combatting racism.

The draft resolution has outraged free speech activists, who are demanding more public scrutiny of what they say is a "draconian" measure that is contrary to liberal democratic values. But the sponsors of the text remain unapologetic.

In an interview with the daily newspaper Le Soir, Senator Richard Miller from Wallonia accuses critics of the resolution of trying to make the draft text say things it does not say.

Miller, a member of the same Mouvement Réformateur that has accused other Belgian politicians of pandering to Muslims, claims his measure is not meant to prohibit the criticism of Islam, but only to "fight against those who often use a variety of arguments, with the result of creating unease in the Muslim population."

Here are the identities and party affiliations of said senators:

a.) BERT ANCIAUX (SP.a, Flemish Socialists): we can be short on this guy. Belgian readers, insofar as they have their head screwed on right, will nod understandingly upon reading the following words: 'Bert Anciaux is a lunatic. Bert Anciaux is a lunatic. Bert Anciaux is a lunatic. Bert Anciaux is a lunatic. Bert Anciaux is a lunatic. (repeat a thousand times). He's, well, he's, he's (insert mental picture of Outlaw shaking his head, shivering).

b.) FAUZAYA TALHAOUI (SP.a, Flemish Socialists). Classic example of an islamic Trojan Horse. At first sight educated, 'progressive' (harumph), 'enlightened' (harumph) muslim woman (think Mona Eltahawi), on second sight even more inclined to pave the way for the bearded apes.

c.) AHMED LAAOUEJ (PS, Walloon Socialists). I don't know this dork, thank God. The fact that this muslim politician has found solace in the arms of the Parti Socialiste must be a coincidence I suppose.

d.) FREYA PIRYNS (Groen!, Flemish Greens). See a.) Just substitute 'he' with 'she'. Except (remember the law proposal dates from February already) if Bert has by this time completed his thrilling journey into the exploration of his feminine side.

e.) ZAKIA KHATTABI (Ecolo, the Walloon Greens). See c.) There really ain't much difference anymore between reds and greens.

And the sixth senator? Ah, that one deserves special mention. For one thing, he does not belong to a party of the usual suspects, but to the MR, the 'Mouvement Reformateur'. His name is Richard Miller, see also Kern's last paragraph. I'll spend some more time here on this particular individual since his behaviour is a perfect illustration of how the leftist madness is spreading through ALL the echelons of Belgian politics except the VB and the Belgian Front National of course (I may be the only Belgian with a party membership card of both).

Well, Richard Miller is a fella who has experienced firsthand what 'intifada' means. Except, deluded as he is, he does not see it that way.

In January 2009, Brussels was in turmoil for the umpteenth time because muslim youths, upon hearing of an Israeli incursion in Gaza, decided to wreak havoc in Brussels' streets. The caption hereunders reads: 'CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE DURING GAZA DEMO IN BRUSSELS'.

 photo gazabetoging2009_zps9bfc11e3.jpg

Oh the virtues of multiculturalism! Oh the gentle souls of those cultural enrichers!

And Miller? When I read that name in Soeren Kern's article, I knew I had come across that fella before. After some hard thinking it was gotcha! Former Belgian blogger Luc Van Braekel (he has emigrated to the US of A recently, though whether that's such a smart decision given Big O's two Four Year Plans remains to be seen) had an item on the same Gaza demo three years back including the adventures of Miller at the hands of the mocro Cultural Enrichers: during the demo they smashed a brick against his head:

 photo richard-miller_zpsbf6ee396.jpg

Photo courtesy Luc Van Braekel.

Isn't it striking how people who have experienced firsthand the hot breath of angry followers of Allah can nevertheless be found so eager to put their shoulders under a lawmaking project that will give the paedophile worshippers even more clout in their zeal to transform this country in an islamic state???

Of the five mentioned before, no surprise there. The two Flemings, Anciaux and Piryns, are insane, and the three others are muslims. With Miller, however... Is he:

a.) also funny in the head (remember the brick!!!),
b.) a traitor
c.) convinced that we should have built more sports and community centers and mosques to reach OOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTT to those hapless youths, or
d.) all of the above?

Oh. Boy. What society are my kids going to grow up in?


Wednesday, May 08, 2013


A must-read: a passionate and eloquent defence of the traditional family by Melanie Phillips, over at Daily Mail Online, May 3, 2013:

"As a university-educated young woman with hippie-style hair and an attitude, I, too, generally toed the standard Leftist line in the late Seventies and early Eighties.

Poverty was bad, cuts in public spending were bad, prison was bad, the Tory government was bad.

The state was good, poor people were good, minorities were good, sexual freedom was good.

And pretty soon I had the perfect platform for those views when I went to work as a journalist on The Guardian, the self-styled paper of choice for intellectuals and the supposed voice of progressive conscience.

The paper and I fitted each other perfectly. If I had been a character in one of the Mister Men books, I would have been Little Miss Guardianista.

Those of us who worked there had a fixed belief in our own superiority and righteousness. We saw ourselves as clever and civilised champions of liberal thought.

I felt loved and cherished, the favoured child of a wonderful and impressive family.

To my colleagues, there was virtually no question that the poor were the victims of circumstances rather than being accountable for their own behaviour and that the state was a wholly benign actor in the lives of individuals.

It never occurred to us that there could be another way of looking at the world.

 photo Melanie-Phillips-007_zps6571020c.jpg

Above all, we knew we were on the side of the angels, while across the barricades hatchet-faced Right-wingers represented the dark forces of human nature and society that we were all so proud to be against.

But then Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979; and although at The Guardian it was a given that she was a heartless, narrow-minded, suburban nightmare, I found myself listening, despite myself, to a point of view I had not heard before.

These Thatcherites were not the usual upper-class squires, but people whose backgrounds were similar to my own.

They were promoting the values with which I had been brought up in my Labour-supporting family — all about opportunities for social betterment, hard work, taking responsibility for oneself.

I always believed a good journalist should uphold truth over lies and follow the evidence where it led.

Trudging round godforsaken estates as the paper’s special reporter on social affairs, I could see the stark reality of what our supposedly enlightened liberal society was becoming.

The scales began to fall from my eyes. I came to realise that the Left was not on the side of truth, reason and justice.

Instead, it promoted ideology, malice and oppression. Rather than fighting abuse of power, it embodied it.

Increasingly, I saw how journalists on highbrow papers write primarily for other journalists or to impress politicians or other members of the great and the good.

They don’t actually like ordinary people — especially the lower middle class, the strivers who believed in self-discipline and personal responsibility.

They dismiss them as narrow-minded, parochial and prejudiced (unlike themselves, of course).

But I always wrote with ordinary people in mind.

Just as they were sceptical of intellectual abstractions, fantasies or Utopian solutions, so was I.

Bit by bit, I saw through the delusion of the Left’s supposedly ‘progressive’ politics.

Increasingly, I turned away from their stupidity, hypocrisy and moral blindness.

They, of course, dismissed me as contemptibly ‘Right-wing’, as if that was sufficient to destroy my argument.

But I am not ideologically driven. I hate the way political debate has been polarised into warring camps, with each side circling its wagons and striking ever more inflexible, dogmatic and adversarial positions.

My battle with the Left has never been from ‘the Right’, despite what they say.

How can I be ‘Right-wing’ when I am driven by the desire to make a better world, stand up for right over wrong and look after the most vulnerable in society?

Rather, I fight the Left on its very own purported moral high ground, which I once believed we all shared, but which I came to realise it had most cynically betrayed.

The defining issue for me — the one that launched me on a personal trajectory of confrontation with the Left and with my colleagues and friends — was the persistent undermining of the family as an institution.

By the late Eighties, it was glaringly obvious that families were suffering a chronic crisis of identity and self-confidence.

There were more and more divorces and single parents — along with mounting evidence that family disintegration and the subsequent creation of step-families or households with no father figure at all did incalculable damage to children."

It's a long article, but well worth your time.

I have afew points to add. First, it turns out that Mrs. Phillips is yet another influential former Lefty who at some point 'saw the light'. She is thus an exemplar of that small but nevertheless not-negligible group of high-profile converts, such as Jean-François Revel or Ronald Reagan. You will forgive ole Outlaw some smirking since me, myself and I NEVER went through an ideological flip: all my life, I've been rightwing. Center-right when I came of age, solidly right at present. If anything, I have only shifted more and more to the right. I think I have come to a standstill in that regard, since I have no intention of becoming an "extreme rightwinger". FYI, I don't believe in the current defintion of 'extreme right': in my opinion, an extreme rightwinger is somewhat with very strong libertarian views AND ethically conservative. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one person who would, from a distance, fit those criteria: James Delingpole. The popular conception of 'extreme right': black leather-clad idiots favoring the Hitler salute is bogus. I piss on that filth. They are extreme LEFTWINGERS who happen to be in the grip of an atavistic fascination for Germany's military prowess during WWII, and their intellectual foundation is as thin as carbon paper. Thinner. But I digress.

Second, I don't follow Melanie when she writes "How can I be ‘Right-wing’ when I am driven by the desire to make a better world, stand up for right over wrong and look after the most vulnerable in society?" As if not striving for a better world, fight for good to prevail over bad and caring for the downtrodden of this earth could never be sincere rightwing aspirations. It's just that we have a firmer sense of what is reasonably possible, that we do care about, say, the environment but are not prepared to go back living in caves, and generally want to see justice done as much as Mrs. Phillips does.

Lastly, several assertions in her story confirm what has become ever more clearly to me over the years, especially the last decade: the Left is NOT INTERESTED IN HONEST DEBATE. It just wants you to SHUT UP if you disagree with them. And the more well-founded your POV is, the more they will be inclined to take that 'shutting up' a step farther: to the courtroom at least, and to jail if possible.

This was Outlaw Mike from The Kingdom of Belgistan, over and out.


Monday, May 06, 2013


Here's yet another topic the Insane Left doesn't want you to know. And IF you know about it, well, there's quite a few white leftozoid self-haters like The Guardian's Gillian Schutte who actually think whites deserve to be murdered for our past behavior:

"Let me begin by wholeheartedly apologising for what my ancestors did to the people of South Africa and inviting you to do the same. I reject their legacy as much as is possible and, as you already know, have made it a life mission to deconstruct the phallocentric white view of ”white as right” and the misguided precept that white is central to all reality."

 photo babyburnedtodeath_SA_zpse07b3d62.jpg

White baby burned to death alive in a plaasmoord somewhere in South Africa. OKEY-DOKEY for The Guardian's Gillian Schutte!!!

It's not clear to me whether, if this Cosmic Cunt Gillian Shutup rejects the white legacy in SA, she's also rejecting the fact that, oh, for starters, half of all railway connections in the entire continent are to be found in its southernmost state alone - courtesy those darn whites. FYI, personally I do think Apartheid should have been abolished - over time. When the black population was ready for it, and sufficiently educated not to put their future in the hands of moronic, cruel and utterly incompetent ANC thugs. Yes, that includes that commie asshole Nelson Fucking Mandela, who enjoyed the good fortune to be imprisoned by a rightwing regime, unlike, say, Armando Valladares. But I digress. DailyKenn urges us to focus on:

"... The 2011 Census determined that there were only 4.3 million White People left in South Africa. We are a minority group that is getting absolutely NO help from the Government or the International Community. Almost 800 000 of our people are currently living in Squatter Camps. That is 18% of our population. Our people are being attacked, tortured, raped, maimed, murdered and impoverished on a daily basis. We have laws in the country preventing whites from finding jobs. We have laws that determine that businesses can’t donate money to charities assisting White people. Our farms are being taken in a Government sanctioned land grab, our statues are being removed, our monuments neglected, our language sidelined and the names of our cities and streets are changed. All of this in an effort to eradicate our culture, our history and our heritage. But on top of all of this, our people are being MURDERED! …and our government calls it “Normal Crime” and our President merrily sings “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer!” “…bring me my machine gun! Let’s shoot them with a cannon!”

Read the FACTS and then convince yourself that this is “normal”…"

Go ahead, and check out DailyKenn's list of the tip of the Iceberg.

Sorry if you just ate.


Sunday, May 05, 2013


A couple of days ago I came across a rather depressing Mark Steyn item on NRO, 'Excluded by the inclusion cops'. It tells the story of a certain 'Inspector' Nicky Veerappan, of Toronto's York Regional Police 'Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Bureau', who basically told the rabbi of a Toronto synagogue to shun scheduled speaker Pamela Geller, a very vocal anti-jihad and anti-honour killing activist, "or else".

At first assuming said 'Inspector' Veerappan to be one of those multiculti-brainwashed self-loathing white twats, possibly because of his name, which sounded Finnish to me, today however I found out Nicky Veerappan is in fact... a muslim.

FIRE THIS SCOUNDREL: 'Inspector' Nicky Veerappan of the Toronto Religious Police. Walking dogshit I'd suggest Canada dispatches to Iran, where the mores are more in line with this fuckface's 'values'.

Mark Steyn:

"... Pamela Geller, tireless campaigner against Islamic imperialism (and a lady I had the honor of being introduced by at CPAC a few years back), was scheduled to give a speech at a Toronto synagogue on May 13th. Miss Geller is not a convicted terrorist or terrorism-supporter or someone who argues for the execution of all homosexuals. If she were, she could speak at any Canadian venue with impunity. Instead, here’s what happened next:

TORONTO - York Regional Police threatened to remove a rabbi as one of the force’s chaplains if he hosted a controversial anti-Islamist speaker at his Thornhill synagogue.

Insp. Ricky Veerappan, of the force’s diversity, equity and inclusion bureau, confirmed he and officers from the service’s hate crimes unit met with Rabbi Mendel Kaplan of the Chabad Flamingo Synagogue on Tuesday.

They expressed concern about an upcoming talk to be given by Pamela Geller, a vocal critic of radical Islam. She protested past plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, and has posted anti-Jihad messages in that city’s subway system.

When the York Regional Police Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Bureau show up thwacking their truncheons against their palms and saying, “Nice little multifaith advisory committee gig you got going, Rabbi. Shame if anything were to happen to it”, a prudent man gets the message:

Subsequent to his meeting with police, Kaplan cancelled Geller’s May 13 talk.

So that worked. Those who didn’t get the memo about Inspector Ricky Veerappan’s self-enthronement as Greater Toronto Area Speech Commissar are scrambling to find Pamela Geller an alternative venue. If you don’t want the coppers determining whose opinions you’re permitted to be exposed to, give ‘em your support...."

Also, check out this video:

Fellow bloggers are invited to spread this story wide and far. That scumbag Veerappan must feel the heat. MFBB.