Pigdogfucker

I’m slightly grumpy about the mayoral election, given that it’s a choice between an utter, utter cunt and a machine politician who’s been in power for too long.

However, this sort of demented loonery makes me increasingly keen to go out there and vote, not just against Boris, but actually for Ken.

Anyone who conflates support of the Palestinians or dislike of the neocon “let’s demonise the Muslims, yay” project with antisemitism is infinitely more bigoted and more insane than Ken will ever be.

And anyone who thinks that, in a run-off between a Jew who works for a Nazi rag [*] and someone who criticises said Jew for working for a Nazi rag, the critic is the one in the wrong is, well, just a cunt really.

[*] the Mail supported Hitler and the blackshirts. If that doesn’t make it a Nazi rag in your world, then you’re Max Moseley and you should probably get back to your holocaust fetish night.

Which westernised country already has a parallel sharia law system in place for its Muslim minority inhabitants to use, if they so desire?

And why aren’t the likes of Melanie Phillips up in arms about said country’s craven surrender to the forces of dhimmitude and generally letting-the-side-down?

Oh, that’ll be why, then…

Via Dan. Relatedly, this comment is a particularly good summary of the “I am an ignorant bigot and will spout on about grand principles about which I know fuck all” school of argument:

Why can we not say definitively and without equivocation that a bed rock principle of a liberal democracy is that there is only one law and that all are subject to and equal under it?

Err, perhaps because that has never been the case anywhere, either de jure or de facto, and never will be the case anywhere? So assuming you want to accept the existence of such a thing as a liberal democracy, you’d probably best find a different bedrock…

The Israeli ambassador to El Salvador makes the Bishop of Southwark look like a rank amateur in the ‘drunken career suicide’ stakes. Good work, that gimp.

Tony Judt is a British Jewish writer and historian. He believes that Israel as a racially-founded state is morally unsustainable, and that it would be desirable to convert “Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one”, with equal rights for all Jews and Arabs living in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Because many defenders of Israel are mendacious conniving bastards who view criticism of Israel as equivalent to antisemitism, Mr Judt has been punished for his views. He was fired from the New Republic, and more recently had a speech cancelled in New York.

On October 4, 2006, Judt’s scheduled New York talk before the organization Network 20/20 was abruptly cancelled after Polish Consul Krzysztof Kasprzyk suddenly withdrew his offer of a venue following telephone calls from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committe.

I wonder if you can guess what the speech was going to be about?

Judt, who had planned to argue that the Israel lobby in the US often stifled honest debate, called the implications of the cancellation “serious and frightening.”

The Diary of Anne Frank:

In traditional antisemitic discourse, one popular tactic is ‘humorously’ changing the names of institutions, organisations or regions that one believes to be excessively Jewish or Jew-controlled. Jew York, Hymietown, Yidsbury, and so on.

While some of these names may live on among borderline ultranationalist loonies and old men’s pub conversations, any mainstream commentator found using them in a piece intended for national publication would instantly be ejected from polite society. Most likely, they’d never get commissioned again outside of fringe publications; at the very least, their article would be spiked and the editor would have a Serious Word with them.

But as Andrew Bartlett points out, people who say “al-Beeb” or “Londonistan” are welcomed into mainstream publications with open arms – Stephen Pollard and Melanie Phillips are names that come to mind without even having to look; a bit of Googling will turn up many others.

Yet another case of Islamophobia as the acceptable antisemitism equivalent for the 21st century (other traditional antisemitic slurs include they’re plotting to destroy us, they control the government, and they rape and prostitute Christian girls. Other recent Islamophobic slurs include they’re plotting to destroy us, they control the government, and they rape and prostitute Christian girls...)

Good news: they’re arming both sides. Now, if only they’d give Hizbollah $5 billion a year in aid as well, there’d be some kind of level killing field.

If you’re the kind of mad bastard who thinks it matters at-all-even-slightly-ever that Reuters bought a photo of the destruction in Lebanon that featured Photoshop-enhanced smoke, I hope you lose your eyes and teeth in a bizarre sailing accident.

I mean, what gives? Israel is merrily genociding the Lebanese population, and what you’re worrying about is some daft stringer making his photo more dramatic so the picture agencies will buy it? Yeah, that’s the fucking moral scandal. Obviously.

Some terrorists capture one single foreign soldier. That soldier’s country responds by invading and killing everyone in sight in the vague hope of retrieving him. They bomb the fuck out of bridges and power stations, presumably just in case he’s being hidden there. What does this say about the character of the people running the soldier’s country?

In some ways, it’s sad that the Palestinians have agreed to tolerate Israel’s existence...

In a pleasant change from being shot with American-made artillery shells while only having sticks and stones to defend themselves, the Palestinians have (at least, so they claim) developed chemical and biological weapons.

I’d recommend a focus on poison gas, if only because it would provoke the funniest reactions on LGF. My tenner’s on “It’s a new Holocaust and the Palis are the new Nazis, therefore we need to fight a new WWII until they’re all dead like Hitler”.

Update: “jihad-genocide” just on the news of the threat. We have a winner…