No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

DWP: Deport With Prejudice

By DeusExMacintosh

Anjem Choudary encourages supporters to claim "Jihad Seekers Allowance" rather than working

Anjem Choudary was secretly filmed mocking non-Muslims for working in 9-5 jobs their whole lives, and told followers that some revered Islamic figures had only ever worked one or two days a year.

“The rest of the year they were busy with jihad [holy war] and things like that,” he said. “People will say, ‘Ah, but you are not working’. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-believers]. So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance. You need to get support.”

He went on to tell a 30-strong crowd: “We are going to take England — the Muslims are coming.”

Ridiculing the daily lives of UK workers, Choudary said: “You find people are busy working the whole of their life. They wake up at 7 o’clock. They go to work at 9 o’clock.

“They work for eight, nine hours a day. They come home at 7 o’clock, watch EastEnders, sleep, and they do that for 40 years of their life. That is called slavery.”

Choudary, a father-of-four, claims more than £25,000 a year in benefits, £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to the Sun, which covertly filmed the preacher at three meetings…

When later confronted about his filmed speeches, Choudary said: “Many people in the Muslim community are on Jobseeker’s Allowance and welfare benefits. As a joke I may say something about Jihad Seeker’s Allowance. Clearly it is not a Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.

“The word jihad means struggle. It does not necessarily mean fighting. I have never said to anyone to kill anyone in this country.”

- The Telegraph

53 Comments

  1. Posted February 20, 2013 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    it’s “thirty-strong crowd” that cracks me up. was that with or without the reporter?

  2. Posted February 21, 2013 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    These mattress-faced lounge lizards seem to have a tin ear for how their comments will go down with the wider public.

  3. Henry2
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    A segment from Bolt on a similar theme

  4. Henry2
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    This

  5. derrida derider
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    The man should be derided, not deported. That 30 strong crowd says it all – he’s a waste of space, but pretty harmless.

    FWIW, I once worked in a government welfare office. We had a local Christian sect which was pretty entirely funded by welfare benefits and spent their days proselytising. Extracting money from the unbelievers for godly purposes is not an exclusively Muslim thing.

  6. Posted February 21, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    The man should be derided, not deported.

    Why not deported?

    Did you miss this bit?

    We are going to take England — the Muslims are coming

  7. kvd
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Henry2′s link raises a good point, about which I remain confused: how does one tell a ‘good’ rabble-rouser from a ‘bad’ one?

    In other, more welcome, news Tesco has announced that it will in future source all fresh meat from local small holdings.

  8. Posted February 21, 2013 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    We had a local Christian sect which was pretty entirely funded by welfare benefits and spent their days proselytising. Extracting money from the unbelievers for godly purposes is not an exclusively Muslim thing.

    Inciting people to behead those who insult the prophet, and putting nailbombs on trains pretty much is though.

    Why is it so hard for some people to just admit the problems with Islam? Why do you have to bring up some random, unheard of Christian sect to morally equivocate?

    Islam is a totalitarian, fascist ideology, and we should no more allow people who to follow it to come to Australia than we should allow members of neo-Nazi movements.

  9. Mel
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    The Catholics have caused far more pain and suffering in Oz than any group of Muzzies. So if we’re going to crack down on deviant religions, let’s liquidate the Catholic church, sell its assets and give the money to the thousands of victims of the Catholic pedoph!le jihad. Fair’s fair.

    Actually we’d better do it before the libertarians and conservatives have their way and Father Abbott is in a position to protect his mates.

  10. Posted February 21, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    The Catholics have caused far more pain and suffering in Oz than any group of Muzzies

    Right. Because we haven’t let many “mussies” in up to now.

    Are you seriously suggesting that Aussie Catholics have been worse than muslims elsewhere in the world?

    We are lucky in that we have not let many Muslims in up until now. Mohammed is the most common boy’s name in Britain. It doesn’t make the top 50 in Australia.

    Keep letting them in, and we’ll end up like the UK and Western Europe. I’m not particularly excited about that possible eventuality.

  11. kvd
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Yobbo: Mohammed is the most common boy’s name in Britain.

    From here, I can see “A total of 37,564 babies have been given a variation of the name in the past five years. Some 36,653 Olivers and 36,581 Jacks were born in England and Wales since 2007.”

    But it also mentions that Britain “grew to 4.6% Muslim in 2010″.

    So I’d suggest that all you may be proving is that Muslims tend to be very boring/unimaginative in their choice of given names for their male offspring.

  12. kvd
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Maybe the new Archbishop could invite an influx of Mexicans; enough such that ‘Jesus’ would provide some counterweight to your concerns.

  13. Posted February 21, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    So I’d suggest that all you may be proving is that Muslims tend to be very boring/unimaginative in their choice of given names for their male offspring.

    I was really only trying to prove that muslims are a much smaller % of the population in Australia than they are in the UK. We haven’t had many problems with them yet because there just aren’t that many here to cause problems.

    We had our first muslim riot a few months ago. Won’t be the last.

    Maybe the new Archbishop could invite an influx of Mexicans; enough such that ‘Jesus’ would provide some counterweight to your concerns.

    I would far prefer an influx of atheist, highly industrious Chinese people.

  14. Marks
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    Yobbo, while it might be satisfying in some way to say that ‘their fruit loops are nuttier than our fruit loops’, I suspect that it is just that some of our institutions are better in controlling ours.

    Sans such institutions, I suspect that our fruit loops are really no fruitier than theirs at all.

  15. Marks
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Whoops, other way round…

  16. Mel
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    We know the Roman Catholic Church has deliberately supplied literally thousands of its employees (Priests) with a fresh supply of child flesh for sexual exploitation for generations and that it regularly and routinely moves its employees to fresh feeding grounds, including new countries, in order to satiate their appetites.

    We know from the Irish Cloyne inquiry and hundreds of other inquiries and uncovered documents that the Vatican has approved of the sex trafficking of children for the enjoyment of its priests and that it has sanctioned immoral and illegal actions to sustain the trade.

    We know that people who have studied the Catholic child sex trade for decades, such as law professor Patrick Parkinson, that employees of the Catholic Church have probably perpetrated at least six times as much child sex abuse as every other religious body in Australia combined.

    WE know that in the Ballarat Diocese in Victoria alone, over 40 abuse victims are suspected of being driven to suicide by Catholic sex abuse.

    We know that the Catholic elite in predominantly Catholic countries, including police and politicians, has done everything it can to keep this sex trade going. (See the Ryan Commission etc re Ireland)

    We know that Cardinal George Pell, who some tip as a future Pope, shared a house with Australia’s most prolific pedoph!le, Father Gerald Risdale, a man convicted of 40 cases of abuse and suspected of having abused over well over 100 children. Various people, including Risdale’s nephew David, have given statements to the police in which they say that Pell was aware of the abuse, did nothing to prevent it and bullied anyone who threatened to go public about the abuse.

    Compared to these crimes, the disgruntled grunts of a few disgruntled Muslims is but piss in the wind.

    Mr Ratzinger, tear down this Church.

  17. Posted February 22, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    I’m not going to defend the Catholic Church Mel.

    I’m only going to say that I’d rather live in a country that is 25% Catholic than a country that is 25% Muslim.

  18. Mel
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Agreed, Yobbo. I hate Muslims more than I hate Catholics in the same way that I hate rats more than I hate cockroaches.

  19. Adrien
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Islam is a totalitarian, fascist ideology, and we should no more allow people who to follow it to come to Australia than we should allow members of neo-Nazi movements.

    Islam is not an ideology. What do you mean by ‘totalitarian’?

  20. Adrien
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    I hate Muslims more than I hate Catholics in the same way that I hate rats more than I hate cockroaches.

    Now here I was thinking that the problem with people like Choudary is that they’re arrogant enough to believe everyone should conform with their point of view and twisted enough to bear intense hatred against those who do not.

    But actually it’s really that not hating the right people. Thanks for steering me clear on that one.

  21. John H.
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Mr Ratzinger, tear down this Church.

    Mel he did not tear down the Church, he walked away from it because of a certain report which I read about only a few minutes ago:

    Pope Benedict resigned after being handed report into gay sex and corruption in Vatican, says newspaper

  22. Mel
    Posted February 22, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Adrien, life has taught me that one must hate without reservation Muslims, Catholics and gingers. They are the Evil Triad.

    “Mel he did not tear down the Church … ”

    No shit? I was trying to summon the ghost of Ronald Reagan.

  23. Posted February 23, 2013 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    Er… isn’t “Ginger” rhyming slang? (Ginger Beer = queer)

  24. Marks
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Yobbo @ 14

    “I would far prefer an influx of atheist, highly industrious Chinese people.”

    You mean like one MT Tung? (Or Dong, as some would have it, depending of course whether Yobbos prefer tung or dong)

  25. Adrien
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Adrien, life has taught me that one must hate without reservation Muslims, Catholics and gingers. They are the Evil Triad.

    So, in regards to the various civilizations that can be regarded as monotheist in character (examples: the Fatimid caliphate; the Safavid dynasty, the American colonies, the city of Rome in the fifteenth century) you have decided to reject the art, the poetry, the architecture and the science keeping only the most odious aspect of it in a highly concentrated little carton.

    Well done mate.

  26. Posted February 23, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Marks@26: The correct spelling is:
    “Mousey Tongue”

  27. kvd
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    “life has taught me that one must hate without reservation Muslims, Catholics and gingers”.

    Mel that’s schoolyard stuff; a 9 on the scale of 10=stupid. Therefore I assume you are being provocative. But it would embarrass to let it pass without comment.

  28. Adrien
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Islam is a totalitarian, fascist ideology,

    This really is one of the fundamental errors in Western thinking about ‘Islam’. Islam to Muslims is a religion and, ideally but really, a political domain as well. The history of Islam is replete with war and conquest so the notion that Muslims regard Islam as a political entity is to assume them extremely asinine.

    Islam is not an ideology. Ideologies are secular, their rationale is based on some supposed set of (usually untested) empirical facts. Religions all claim the authority of Heaven and monotheist religions claim a central and sole authority. So there is some resemblance between totalitarian regimes and religious institutions, eg: the development and deployment of compulsory doctrine, the seeking out and punishment of heresy and apostasy etc. But the practice was fundamentally different in Christendom and Islam and these differ again from the totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

    Islam has no system of organization as with the Catholic church or its descendants. Neither is there a systematic standardization of doctrine, practice, attitude and opinion within the realm of Jihadist activity as there was with the Communist Party worldwide until 1956. This realm is a minority in the Muslim world and whatever growth it enjoys has more to do with Western acts of contempt (like Operation Southern Watch) than anything bin Laden had to say. The Middle East is well weary of various small time Napoleons who long to restore the Caliphate. There is, however, a nostalgia for prior greatness and a credulous warm disposition toward Sharia law. It, after all, worked for a long time and modernization hasn’t exactly been overwhelming in its bounty. So we see its resurgence today. As well as dire hostility toward it among the people of Iran.

    It’s a mistake to see ‘Islam’ as yet another manifestation of the Soviet Union, they just don;t operate that way.

  29. Mel
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    kvd, you bonehead, this post is labelled “funnies” and I’m obviously being flippant.

    Found myself at a birthday party with approx 300 Indian Catholics with mostly Spanish and Portugese surnames on Sat night. They were lovely people and I admired the closeness of their families and community connectedness.

    Adrien: “Islam is not an ideology. Ideologies are secular … ”

    Ideology is an umbrella concept covering all aspects of one’s worldview and can be religious, secular or a bit of both. This is sociology 101, Adrien.

  30. Adrien
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Ideology is an umbrella concept covering all aspects of one’s worldview and can be religious, secular or a bit of both. This is sociology 101, Adrien.

    There is no clear boundary between ‘ideology’ and a theological worldview I suppose, especially considering that modern ideologies have grown out of religious dispositions of the past. However I think that it’s probably uncontroversial to assert that the Weltanschauung of a tribe in the Amazon is formally different from the sum of ideas shared by a faction of the Labor Party.

    When I say that Islam is not an ideology I am merely distinguishing it from the narrow confines of that term. An ideology, whatever its religious content, is regarded by its adherents and opponents as a human formulation for application in the secular world. It might be regarded as ‘compulsory’ for whatever reason but those that do assert such ideological formulations don’t rest their authority on God but on phenomenon with which science and its methods may be at least nominally concerned like History or Biology. Or both.

    To relegate Islam to the category of totalitarian ideology is to generalize an entire region of world civilization, with its histories, schisms, rises, falls and internal contradiction to another species of foe indistinguishable from National Socialism or Communism. This is in error. How do you reconcile, say, The Arabian Nights or the poetry of Rumi with the proclamations of Khomeini? They are all products of ‘Islam’.

  31. Adrien
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    I can only add that in this disturbing rush of chauvinism founded on the supposed superiority of ‘Western culture’ this willingness to relegate something vast, complex and bearing many contradictions to some singular force undifferentiated and complete homogenous in its views is a fundamental violation of this self-same Western culture which has its roots in, if anything, the work of Homer who espoused the virtues of Hector as well as Achilles and Herodotus who sought to preserve the glory both of Greeks and barbarians from oblivion.

    This is not to be understood in the context of that rather witless artifact of the Culture Wars ‘moral equivalency; but rather in the disinterested point of view and the tendency to objectivity that we like to celebrate if seldom actually practice.

    How does this exhortation apply to practical matters? Well for one thing assuming a posture that Iran is part of an axis of totalitarian evil obviates the fact that 3 decades of theocracy have made the ordinary Iranian much more ‘Western’ than the preceding 26 years of foolhardy meddling in Persian affairs by the West ever could.

  32. Mel
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Adrien:

    “It might be regarded as ‘compulsory’ for whatever reason but those that do assert such ideological formulations don’t rest their authority on God but on phenomenon with which science and its methods may be at least nominally concerned like History or Biology.”

    Nope. If X says “abortion is a sin because the Bible tells me so”, he is making an ideological statement.

    Adrien:

    “To relegate Islam to the category of totalitarian ideology …”

    I agree with you that such a sweeping statement is silly. Of course, in truth there are (at least) one thousand and one versions of Islam and the tails hold little in common with core.

    Another point is that, just like no two snowflakes are the same (1), ideology as it exists in the minds and behaviours of each individual is unique.

    (1) a myth btw, but I still like the expression.

  33. Adrien
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    (1) a myth btw, but I still like the expression.

    Really, I never heard that before.

    Your abortion example is a good one. If one holds that abortion is wrong from religious conviction or patriarchal tradition that is something that is pre-ideological, the word appears in, of course, France, in the late 18th century. When I say ideology I’m attempting to distinguish it from religious and traditional truth. This distinction is that is it formulated to bolster a posture. The creation of religious worldviews is not so formulated. It is derived from a process of revelation and divination. Okay let’s grant the agnostic position that a more likely cause of this ‘revelation’ comes from wandering around in deserts in a malnourished condition for a month, it doesn’t matter within the system of belief because that belief is predicated on a reading of the ravings of the excessively sunstruck as divine communication.

    This communication has a long history. In ‘paganism’ such supernatural dispatches are comparatively regular in occurrence and exclusive to individuals, small groups or tribes. In monotheism they are occasional and universally binding. They are finite. Thus monotheism helps close down an open market in superstition and starts to subject claims of divine revelation to censure and skepticism. This is its link with the scientific era.

    Ideology has an obvious antecedent in religion but its not the same thing. Certain species of Jihadist dogma are ideological and its authors are most definitely so. But in general the motivation is religious, a matter of faith, and therefore different.

  34. Mel
    Posted February 28, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    “If one holds that abortion is wrong from religious conviction or patriarchal tradition that is something that is pre-ideological, the word appears in … ”

    Sigh.

  35. Adrien
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    The speaker refuses to deal with the meat of the matter and instead offers a glib response intended to conceal his lack of willingness to engage…

    Sigh.

  36. Mel
    Posted March 1, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Well try to say something intelligent, Adrien. You can’t sensibly hive off religious belief from the definition of ideology any more than you can sensibly hive off a pony from any sensible definition of an animal.

    You ginger meatball …

  37. Adrien
    Posted March 2, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Well try to say something intelligent, Adrien

    Like ‘you ginger meatball’?

    To use your analogy Steve, ideology is to horse as religion is to donkey*. When we’re dealing with ‘Islam’ we’re dealing with a donkey not a horse. They’re similar but not exactly the same.

    And, as with the uses of those animals, it’s important to understand the difference in order to understand. Understanding is important whatever the posture. It was Odysseus’ understanding of Trojan customs that led him to believe they’d fall for the subterfuge. Understanding does not necessarily entail ‘moral equivalency’ or ‘cultural relativism’.

    *More accurately: As Equus is to Plesippus

  38. Mel
    Posted March 3, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    OK, I will have one final go. Words used by political scientists and sociologists, such as ideology, tend to have one thousand and one definitions. This is one of the reasons why these fields are such a clusterfuck of misunderstanding and stagnation.

    Accordingly, it may well be the case that in some obscure tradition/s, ideology means what you say it means. However, it isn’t the case in the mainstream schools of thought that use the term such as critical theory and the various Marx derived theories.

    See here on Marx/Engels German ideology: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/marxideology.html

    Gramsci of course wrote extensively on religion, hegemony and ideology and that contribution has proved fertile in modern sociology.

    If you want to adhere to some obscure definition or your own unique definition of ideology, knock yourself out.

  39. Adrien
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    So I’m supposed to adhere to Marx’s definition of ‘ideology’ which is dependent on his ideas of superstructure etc.

    Alright. Forget semantics. Islam is distinguishable from liberalism, or if you like fascism, – I am not talking about content – it is structurally different, it is a different kind of thing.

    Agree?

  40. Mel
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    “So I’m supposed to adhere to Marx’s definition … ”

    Don’t be a crybaby, Adrien. I only gave Marx’s definition as an example of my rightness and your wrongness. Plus I’ve already said you can believe whatever you like.

  41. Adrien
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    I only gave Marx’s definition as an example of my rightness and your wrongness.

    What a beautiful sentence. Gee I really wish I’d written that.

    Your rightness as you so elegantly put it is founded on the definition of a word; obviously you did the Master’s Course In Berian Rhetoric at the University of Judeanpeoplesfront.

    Whatever. Words evoke phenomena; that is their function. If you wish to wallow in the sands of obtuse denial and deal with the vast terrain of something by gross simplification and sectarian prejudgement be my guest. You’re as entitled to trenchant blindness as the next Oik.

    But you are conflating one phenomenon with another. There is a resemblance but it passes under the cursory examination of minds that aren’t completely closed for business.

  42. Mel
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    “But you are conflating one phenomenon with another.”

    Nope. I’m adhering to the stock standard definition of ideology that I learnt in my bachelor of social science.

    Culture is another umbrella concept that incorporates the religious as well as the secular. Remember the statement I gave earlier:

    “If X says “abortion is a sin because the Bible tells me so”, he is making an ideological statement.”

    Of course such a belief is also an attribute of X’s culture in addition to being a religious belief.

    It seems clear to me that you have a problem comprehending abstract concepts.

  43. Adrien
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Nope. I’m adhering to the stock standard definition of ideology that I learnt in my bachelor of social science.

    Which is that ideology is a set of ideas and it includes religious, political, religio-political and politico-religio-econometric vectors of perpetual pre-Onanic subaqueous exegetic glossal.

    I seem to recall you paying out on ‘thocial thienth’. Like, for years. The 20th Century Post-Humanist Academy: Where we devise never ending strategies to obstruct constructive conversation by use of dictionaries, thesaurii, art market shysterism and half-baked analogies borrowed from science as read by people who can barely multiply. This was of course far superior to the previous etiquette which assumed a solid grounding in the eternally elusive mindfucks of epistemology and merely sought terms and notions that bore sufficient transparency of meaning to support said discourse.

    Or perhaps you seek to differ from my appraisal of your ‘science’ because there were many graphs in your texts. Bully!

    Ideology’s whatever you say it is. I say: it’s a grave error to conflate ‘Islam’ and ‘fascism’.

  44. kvd
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    30-40; Mel to serve… :)

  45. Mel
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    No one is conflating Islam and fascism, you gingerbread simpleton.

    No one who notes humans and seahorses fall under the umbrella concept that is”animal” is conflating these two things either.

  46. Mel
    Posted March 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    X believes abortion is wrong because the Bible tells him so.

    Y believes abortion is wrong because he reasons that it is the taking of an innocent life.

    Z believes abortion is wrong because his wife told him it is wrong and he always agrees with wife.

    Everyone who is not a fool realises that the idea that “abortion is wrong” has concrete socio-political consequences that play out irrespective of the aetiological particulars of the idea. Everyone who is not a fool realises that this fact is important and that it needs a word that encapsulates it.

  47. Adrien
    Posted March 5, 2013 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Everyone who is not a fool realises that the idea that “abortion is wrong” has concrete socio-political consequences that play out irrespective of the aetiological particulars of the idea.

    1. I’m not discussing abortion.

    2. If you’re going to use fancy words I strongly suggest that you find out what they mean first. I haven’t said anywhere that Islam isn’t of consequence, social, political or otherwise. The internal combustion engine had such consequences. Is it an ideology?

    No one is conflating Islam and fascism

    Really?

    Yobbo: “Islam is a totalitarian, fascist ideology”. (#9)

  48. Mel
    Posted March 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    “The internal combustion engine had such consequences. Is it an ideology?”

    The internal combustion engine is not an idea, it is a thing.

    You’ve lost the plot as well as the argument.

  49. Adrien
    Posted March 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    You’ve lost the plot as well as the argument.

    Well there is some kind of a contest and I’m throwing the towel most definitely. I’m not certain the contest consisted of anything I’d recognize as ‘debate’. Your tactics are pure filibuster, for example.

    The internal combustion engine is not an idea, it is a thing.

    Because it is a thing, not an idea* that’s somehow evidence of having lost the plot? You said something about social consequences and… oh forget it. You’re literate enough.

    Argue about the meaning of ideology backed up by the inevitable credentialism. It’s the standard evasion tactics of the smug campus cocktail party. All in furtherance of evasion.

    The evasion from something that might somehow disrupt the age old swelling of the human instinct to all decide firmly that some other group of humans is suddenly not human anymore.

    Adios amigo.

    * It’s an idea too. :)

  50. Mel
    Posted March 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Oh no, don’t let me discourage you, little gingerbread man. You know you are a genius and you know the world needs you ;)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*