by Pat Condell
You people have certainly reminded me, as if I needed reminding, why my political views have changed in recent years. You see, foolishly perhaps, I used to take freedom for granted, but now, thanks to ultra tolerant self-hating multicultural lemmings like you, I don’t.
Politically I always used to be on the liberal left, because I used to believe in social justice, tolerance, respect – you know, the good things in life. I still believe in those things, which is why I’m no longer on the liberal left, because I believe that, in aligning itself, as it has, so completely with the fascism of Islam, and in colluding with an ideology that wants to victimise minorities and kill people for their lifestyle, the liberal left has lost its way, lost its moral authority, and become a threat to our freedom. The medicine has become the disease. And I don’t want to be contaminated, so where does that leave me now politically? On the right? No, because that’s the last place I want to be. So I suppose it leaves me somewhere in the middle, not knowing which way to turn because my natural constituency has been poisoned by people like you, and I can’t tell you how much I resent that. Actually, I probably could, but it might take a while.
Some of you even stooped so low as to try and associate me with an organisation called the BNP, or the British National Party, when everybody who has seen my videos knows full well that my argument is with religion and has got nothing at all to do with race.
I believe the BNP has a racial agenda, and is therefore a racist party, so I would rather vote for nobody at all. In fact I’d rather drive a garden fork through my own foot than vote for the BNP.
But this video is not about them. It’s not about right wing fascists. It’s about the left wing kind. And I think the word “racist” deserves a public apology for the way it’s been hijacked and abused by you multicultural pimps, along with another public apology for all the victims of genuine racism – people who have actually suffered because of the colour of their skin or where they happen to come from, and who can see that word being devalued every time one of you liars uses it to defend a religion, and a fascist religion at that.
Race is irrelevant. We’re all one race. That’s obvious to anyone with half a brain – we’re all part of the same organism. But we’re not all one religion, are we? And we’re not all one culture. And the truth is, and this is the truth whether you clowns want to hear it or not, that many people in the West feel that we are being invaded (yes, that’s the word – invaded) by a religion and a culture whose values we totally reject. Not because we’re racists, but because the values themselves are degrading and offensive.
The whole point of female concealment in Islamic society is that men are not expected to take responsibility for their sexual urges, so any woman who is not covered up from head to toe is asking to be raped.
The burka therefore legitimises rape. It apologises for rape. It justifies rape. Are you listening, feminists? And this makes it, in my opinion, as offensive a public statement as a Ku Klux Klan uniform or a Nazi swastika, and I think it should be treated with exactly the same revulsion and contempt.
And as for the free choice argument that you like to defend so disingenuously, well, walking around naked is a free choice, wearing a ski mask into a bank is a free choice, but in neither case would you get away with it for very long.
This so-called choice to wear the burka is exercised more here in the West than it is in Muslim countries because here it’s being used quite deliberately as a weapon of cultural jihad, in a naked attempt (if you’ll pardon the expression) to undermine the most fundamental of our values, that every human being is born equal.
In Islam, as you may have noticed, every human being is not born equal, not by a long way, and this presents us with a problem in the liberal West, the solution to which is not that we should show how reasonable and tolerant we are by compromising our principles, effectively turning them inside out so as not to cause offence. No, the solution is for Muslim men to start treating women as equals and not as possessions. That’s the only solution, it’s not negotiable, and saying so doesn’t make anybody a racist. Sorry.
As for Islamophobia, just because somebody offends you with their opinion it doesn’t give you the right to saddle them with a clinical condition.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. It simply doesn’t exist. And most people now realise just what a cynical manpulative lie that word really is. Suspicion of, or dislike of, Islam is not a phobia. It’s an honest, healthy reaction to the evidence that has been provided.
But although Islamophobia doesn’t exist, I’ll tell you what does exist in great abundance, and that’s Islamonausea, in people who are absolutely sick of Islam and its multicultural apologists.
And let’s not forget Islamophobianausea. This is nausea brought on by constantly hearing the word Islamophobia. In fact, I’ve got to stop saying Islamophobia now because I’m already beginning to feel queasy.
These words are being used quite shamelessly to try and engineer an artificial sense of guilt in western society, to redefine our values as prejudices, and to silence legitimate opinion and the free exchange of ideas that have made us what we are and given us our strength. And that’s why this is damaging our society in a fundamental way, and it has got to stop.
All over the western world we’ve become so intimidated into watching every word and thought in case it might offend somebody’s precious faith, it’s as if the free world has forgotten to inhale.
What happened to our birthright?
We need to take a deep breath. We need to get the oxygen of freedom flowing through our veins again, and through our brains again, and get things back in perspective.
We have nothing to apologise for, and nothing to feel guilty about. And our way of life, despite its many faults (of which we’re all very well aware, thank you) is still far superior to anything Islam has to offer, or will ever have to offer, especially if you’re female or Jewish or homosexual, or even just a common or garden blasphemer like me.
That is the truth, and most people in the western world realise it’s the truth, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them saying so as loudly and as often as they like.
And you leftie liberal multicultural appeasement monkeys, you’re not going to like it, and you’re certainly not going to want to speak out for the values that give you the freedom to be the useful idiots you are, but if you could at least find it in your miserable frightened little hearts not to slander those of us who do as racists, we’d all be very grateful.
Peace.
59.
The Arrogance of Clergy
October 2, 2009
Although I’m an atheist and a secularist and just about as anti-religion as it’s possible to be, I have no problem with anyone believing in God if that’s how they want to live their lives. In fact, I think for some people believing in a false god (and this one is false, because they all are) can be quite therapeutic in the way that, say, artificial daylight can help with the winter blues.
But personal faith and public religion are two completely different things. When religion goes public it stops being spiritual and it becomes political, usually running on the moral hypocrisy ticket.
And because it claims divine authority, demanding unconditional submission and obedience from outside the bounds of reason, it despises democracy as much as it despises women and homosexuals (so quite a lot, then) and therefore it’s always working towards theocracy, towards strengthening the power and status of clergy.
Public religion exists for the sole benefit of clergy, and clergy exist for the sole benefit of clergy, and this is a pivotal point to understand.
Personal faith, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, doesn’t need to be administered and policed by a privileged class of clerical fascists, whereas public religion not only depends on clergy, they depend on it. Neither can exist without the other, and neither is actually necessary.
And they know this, of course, which is why their poxy religion is all about guilt
and submission and obedience, not enlightenment. Are you kidding? That’s the last thing they want, because enlightened people don’t need clergy.
Why do you think the Pope tells Catholics: “Obedience to the doctrine of the Church is the foundation of your faith”? Not the Sermon on the Mount, not loving your neighbour. Obedience is your foundation. Of course it is. It has to be, because the alternative is for you to look into your own heart, and that’s the last place these parasites want you looking, because that’s where the bullshit detector is.
I’ve heard clergy referred to as many things – sky pilots, dog-collared vampires, humanity’s headlice is one of my favourites – but I don’t think those epithets do justice to the true iniquity of the clerical profession, which I believe is engaged in the wilful misdirection of the human race.
Like alchemists who specialise in turning gold into lead, clergy seek to eliminate as much creativity and pleasure as possible, to effectively neutralise the human experience, and to persuade us that this life isn’t good enough.
They claim moral authority, when their track record shows that the words “religion” and “moral” don’t even belong in the same sentence, any more than the words “creation” and “science”, or “Islamic” and “education”, or “biblical” and “sense”.
In fact, the only moral that any sane person takes from religion is: Don’t believe everything you read in books.
And whenever some senior clergyman is quoted in the media, he goes out of his way to portray secular opinion as a form of extremism, when it’s they themselves who are the extremists, insisting that we deny the evidence of our own senses, not only to accommodate a raft of unprovable absurdities, but to let them dictate many aspects of our lives. How much more extreme do you want it?
And there are no depths to which these people won’t sink to reinforce their crappy dogma.
Condoms, for example. We all know the Catholic Church doesn’t like birth control (which is a little odd, as it favours every other form of control) but to knowingly give false information about life and death issues to people who are compelled to obey, as the Pope did a few months ago,* and as Catholic clergy do quite routinely in Africa, is cynical and inhuman, and should be treated as attempted murder.
Every public utterance from a senior clergyman is designed to disempower us and to disconnect us from the planet that gives us life, because they don’t want us grounded in any way. So they tell us that we don’t even belong in this world. We’re far too good for this sinful place, because we’re sacred and special. Yeah right. We’re so special we’ve got to spend our whole lives on our knees apologising for stuff we had nothing to do with.
Why do you think all the good stuff about religion happens in the future and not in the present? Not at the only point of actual contact you have with reality, and therefore the only point you have any power. That’s reserved for prayer and penance and despising the human condition.
Far better, then, for you to focus on that glorious future, and while you’re waiting for it to arrive (indeed, while you’re waiting for your life to end so that it can arrive) what better moment than the present to get down on your knees and say some prayers and do some penance? (You can never do enough, you know that.)
And while you’re down there apologising for your existence as usual, why not take a second to ask yourself a pretty obvious question to me: Who benefits from your faith in the here and now where it actually counts? Who reaps the earthly rewards as opposed to the less tangible heavenly ones in the happy-ever-after land that you’ve been promised?
Let me ask you something. How many people do you know of who live in a palace? A handful, right? How many of those people are Christian clergymen, and what the bloody hell do you suppose they think they’re doing there?
Surely any clergyman who lives in a palace has missed the point and the message of Jesus by a country mile. You don’t need to be a theologian to know this. A child could point out that this man hasn’t even begun to understand the lesson he’s supposed to be teaching others. He’s merely acting out a role like a trained monkey. He isn’t remotely qualified to hold the position he does, and, in holding it as he does, he debases it and renders it meaningless.
The Archbishop of Canterbury; you remember him, of course. He’s the unprincipled quisling who wants sharia law implemented in Britain because it’s religious law, and because, for him, religion comes first and people come second. And here in Britain we’ve become quite used to being lectured by this man about selflessness and non-materialism from the comfort of one of his two magnificent palaces. That’s right, two palaces conveniently situated about an hour’s drive from each other. I’ve actually mentioned this before, but I’m having to do it again because I still can’t quite believe it myself.
His colleague the Archbishop of York, another media moralist with plenty to say for himself, lives guess where, in a palace. Of course he does. Where else would he live? Anything else would be an insult to Jesus, isn’t that right?
And as for the rest of them, the bishops, the archbishops and the cardinals, none of those bastards would dirty their feet on anything less than a mansion.
Of course we all know about the Pope and his massive palace. In fact, he presides over an entire city that doubles as a sovereign state over which he is sole ruler. Nice work if you can get it.
Meanwhile, where you? Still on your knees praying for salvation, by any chance? Well, if so, keep it up, because your favourite televangelist needs to buy himself a new private jet with your money – in Jesus’ name, of course.
That Jesus, he’s going to be a very wealthy young man if he ever comes back, isn’t he, with all that stuff that’s been bought in his name. All that crude extravagant unnecessary luxury.
I wonder what he’ll think when he realises that the image of his grisly death on the cross has been turned into the most lucrative money-grubbing logo in human history and that two thousand years on it’s still raking in mountains of cold hard cash, mostly from poor people.
I wonder if Jesus will allow himself a twinge of conscience, and reflect that perhaps he is the one who should be repenting, and not us. And that it’s he who should be asking our forgiveness for allowing his name to be hijacked and exploited by these cynical life-sucking criminals. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
In the meantime, turn to religion if you really have to for comfort, if it’s all you’ve got to lean on. But, whatever you do, don’t turn to religion for the truth. Religion doesn’t know the truth, and these men are living proof of that. If, by some miracle, they were to stumble upon the truth, they would hide it to protect their stinking dogma the way it protects them.
How obvious does it have to be that these are not men of humility and wisdom (which is kind of the Jesus model, and really what we were looking for) but career politicians. Petty, small-minded, status-obsessed, ego-bound men. What a humiliating state for anyone claiming to be a spiritual teacher. The very pharisees, in fact, that Jesus himself resisted. The ones obsessed with their own importance, their own grandiosity, with the status quo at any cost, with dogma over compassion every single time. The ones who behave as if people exist for the benefit of religion and not the other way round.
I found out recently that the word heretic comes from the Greek word hairetikos, meaning able to choose, which pretty much says it all, don’t you think? Peace, and God bless atheism.
* In March 2009 the Pope said condoms could make the AIDS crisis in Africa worse. Other Catholic clergy have directly blamed their use for the spread of the disease.
60.
Wake Up, America
October 22, 2009
You remember the cartel of Islamic dictatorships that hijacked the United Nations Human Rights Council, don’t you? And then promptly passed a resolution banning criticism of religion? Yes, of course you do.
Well, apparently they’ve decided now that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives people just a bit too much freedom
and dignity for their liking, so they’ve devised their own Islamic human rights charter – which is a bit like Satan getting his own set of pearly gates, and about as convincing.
Unfortunately the Islamic charter is based on sharia, which is, of course, invalid because it’s God’s law, and God doesn’t exist.
To claim that he does is extremely offensive to those of us who passionately believe otherwise. It’s a grave insult to our most deeply cherished beliefs, an assault on the very core of our being, no less, and a violation, therefore, of our human rights, isn’t it? Well, isn’t it?
Now all this would be something of a tiresome joke, if not for the fact that this nonsense is beginning to have a real effect on our basic freedoms, certainly here in Europe, and Americans would do well to wake up and pay attention to what’s going on.
Ever since the Islamic countries demanded that western governments make it a crime to criticise Islam, all over Europe blasphemy laws and religious insult laws are being used to criminalise freedom of speech.
The latest is Ireland, a country that has been literally raped by religion, yet has passed a law protecting it from criticism. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.
Free speech, they tell us, carries certain responsibilities. Too true it does, the primary one being that what you say should be the truth.
And the truth should never be embarrassing, and it should never be illegal, and any government that is so embarrassed by the truth that it makes it illegal is governing under false pretences.
The Dutch government, for example, which is in the process of embarrassing itself by prosecuting the leader of one of the country’s largest political parties, for the crime of telling the truth.