for my transaction?* (Decision being:  do I buy online a wee giftie for The Spouse with my card, or should I perhaps join ‘PayPal’?).


of my researches I then happened across this snippet which I quote—

PayPal’s partner MasterCard ceased taking donations to WikiLeaks in 2010, and PayPal also suspended, and later permanently restricted, payments to the website after the U.S. State Department deemed WikiLeaks activities as illegal. Online supporters and activists retaliated by subjecting PayPal and MasterCard, along with other companies, to coordinated cyber attacks.[123]

—which of course led me to that “Eeeeeek~!” reaction I get whenever I spot a blatant  and quite unabashed contradiction.


if you are a product of your upbringing (circumstances & endless propaganda) and you simply can’t see it.

Too few can, I’m afraid, so you aren’t alone there. Just keep on buying them Lotto tickets and guzzling your beloved Soma …


* In the end I opted to use my card. You know something? I’ve often wondered: does anyone ever (r) ever read plough through all the endless screeds, sub-screeds, sub-sub-sub (etc etc ad infinitem) of monotonous unrewarding legalistic self-serving BS jargon? You know the stuff I’m referring to—in the end it can all be summarised simply as “We at (insert name here) declare that we are in no way responsible for anything you do or which is done unto you whilst availing yourself of our services**).

** Which means simply “Just pour your money into our coffers (and Devil Take The Hindmost) (meaning YOU, Bub~!).  Nyah nyah nah nah naaaaaahhhhhh~!



come in now, please—

Others, like the late Helen Kelly, used marijuana to ease the pain in the latter stages of cancer. And yet a dark clouds still hangs over marijuana as if it’s some sort of dirty drug option.

At the same time, we don’t have the same concerns about the wide-spread use of anti-depressants which ease suffering but alter the mind while they do so.

The latest statistics I can find on anti-depressant use come from the University of London and this is just for the UK, but in 2015, 61 million anti-depressant prescriptions were issued. 61 million. Compared with the 1990s, patients stay on anti-depressants for 50% longer now. Some for decades.

So increasingly in a world where we prescribe drugs that alter the mind, why do we still oppose the controlled use of medicinal marijuana?

—to read more, click the link below:

Or not.

As a non-smoker of the legal ghastly weed I must admit that the couple of times I tried the illegal ghastly weed it did absolutely nothing for me. Correction, it gave me a bit of a sore throat. (A small price to pay—in the company I was with each time to not indulge may have led to worse than a mere sore throat)(brrr.)

pot luck.png

Who uses cannabis?

Official statistics from Auckland University’s Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit show half of New Zealanders aged 15-65 have tried cannabis, and one-in-six define themselves as regular users. That’s about 1.5 million ordinary Kiwis who have ignored the law and tried cannabis, and around 400,000 who continue to use it.

Many successful business and professional leaders — including many elected officials such as former Prime Minister Helen Clark, Opposition Leader Phil Goff and Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne — admit they have tried cannabis. Pot smoking is now normal.

to read from source: CLICK LINK  —>

I stumbled over this lot when I came across an article about some of the medical uses of the dread weed. If medics were genuinely more concerned with health than making bucks, perhaps they’d speak up (but if, of course, it really is a miracle treatment … silly me).

Anyway: don’t worree, be happee … and guzzle your soma.

Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 18.39.21.png

(if this is it … it’s about as appealing as a bowl of scotch thistles. Yuk~)





a taster.

First, what follows isn’t mine. I wish it were. A few years ago I used (what must’ve been) a UK based blogsite—all the usual blogging stuff but one fellow stood out head and shoulders above the rest.

I don’t know if he’s still around or even still bothers, but at that time I pulled in this work which I’m reproducing here in full (coloured green). Your taster (in red) is snipped from it, I hope it intrigues you enough to read the whole.


… Next it is imperative that your first allegiance as a Muslim is to other Muslims. This means that your loyalty is not to yourself, your family, your tribe or your nation: it is to Islam alone. This creates unity across borders.

If you are a man, the only way to ensure you will go to Paradise is to die fighting for the cause…

The Koran must be read in Arabic. Thus all believers are tied together by a common language. No matter what you do, you cannot go to Paradise unless you pray in Arabic. This shared language makes it much easier to plot and conspire …

By a guy called Steve Hayes. His avatar was a white wolf, I liked it. I tried to track him down and ended up wandering through the site of a UK university; but called away by The Spouse I had to leave and never went back.


a summary on Islam as ever I’ve seen anywhere (and far better than I could produce myself).

Read and weep …

Steve Hayes.pngWhy Islam is so dangerous 

Islam is dangerous. Here in the West, it seems that most people are incapable of appreciating the seriousness of that threat. It is as though centuries of religious tolerance, secularism and even outright disbelief have rendered many incapable of a true appreciation of the motive power of belief.

I have attempted to address this issue before. But it seems that many cannot understand that when Muslims take to the streets demanding the beheading of all infidels, when suicide bombers murder innocents, when women are stoned to death for being raped that these are not the actions of a few deranged fundamentalists, not some perversion of the religion, but the true and genuine face of Islam. I will therefore in this post simply point out and briefly explain the basic tenets of Islam.

Islam is written down in the Koran. It cannot be changed, up-dated, re-interpreted or modernized. It is the unchangeable Word of God. To try to change the Koran is punishable by death. And it contains clear instructions for its spread, making it a holy duty to convert the entire world.

Islam demands that Muslims create a state that enforces it. No other religion has ever required, as a religious duty, that the government enforce the religion. It even has it own system of law to facilitate this duty. It is called Sharia and it is barbarous.

The Koran further requires that Islam be spread by the use of war. Whilst members of other religious faiths have attempted to impose their religion by force, they have struggled to reconcile such behaviour with their own doctrines. In Islam it is a holy duty. It helps to save the poor infidels from their sin. This is the only way to bring submission to the Will of God on Earth. The Prophet provides the perfect example. Whilst he tried to convert people by persuasion, he gained after thirteen years a mere one hundred and fifty followers. When he took the path of violence, within ten years he had tens of thousands of converts. His followers added millions by the same methods; and now it stands at over a billion.

Islam holds that contraction is bad and expansion good. So any lands lost such as Spain and Israel must be re-conquered. Moreover, any lands that do not follow the laws of Allah must be conquered and Sharia imposed. It is a sin not to do so.

In order to ensure as many children, new Muslims, as possible, a Muslim man may have up to four wives and have sex with as many slave (ie, infidel) girls as he wishes.

It is a punishable offence, punishable by death, to criticise Islam. Just to spell this out: no freedom of speech and without freedom of speech there is no means to defend any freedom.

Furthermore, you are not allowed to leave Islam. So contrary to international law or any sense of morality, if you even for a moment profess a belief in Islam you can be legitimately murdered should you subsequently change your mind. This means anyone who is not following Islam to the letter is an apostate and should be punished by death; a major reason why there are no moderate Muslims. Anytime someone wishes to up-date Islam and, for instance, give women equal rights, they are labelled apostate and subject to murder.

Next it is imperative that your first allegiance as a Muslim is to other Muslims. This means that your loyalty is not to yourself, your family, your tribe or your nation: it is to Islam alone. This creates unity across borders.

If you are a man, the only way to ensure you will go to Paradise is to die fighting for the cause. No matter how good a Muslim you are, the only sure way of getting to Heaven is to fight.

The Koran must be read in Arabic. Thus all believers are tied together by a common language. No matter what you do, you cannot go to Paradise unless you pray in Arabic. This shared language makes it much easier to plot and conspire.

And that prayer must be conducted five times each day. In Islamic states the practice is even enforced by law, as it ensures that daily life is dominated with the ideas of Islam. It is of course impossible to forget something that you are bowing down to five times a day, day in and day out. It requires no great insight to see that the more time and effort a person expends on something, the more he will value it. Thus, mere outward observance can eventually create believers.

Further, the practice of prayer is highly ritualized, involving washing first, the reciting of verses, the movement in time with others. All this creates a bond between the participants and Muslims believe that all Muslims are performing these actions in precisely the same way at the same moment right across the whole world.

The subordinate position of women is far from accidental. It is integral to Islam’s violent mission. Women tend to strongly object to seeing their sons and husbands going off to fight. So women are not allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative. A woman is not allowed to be a head of state or a judge. She may only inherit up to half of what a man may. Her testimony is only worth half of a man’s. She is not allowed to choose who she may be married to, and her husband cannot be a non-Muslim. She cannot divorce her husband, but he may divorce her at will and he may and indeed should beat her if she is disobedient to his will. Her only certain way into Paradise is if her husband is happy with her.

Whilst the Koran is unchangeable, Allah has obviously the right to edit it. This rule holds that if one passage of the Koran contradicts another, it is the latter passage that is correct. As the Koran was written over a period of twenty-three years, and during very changing circumstances, such contradictions occur frequently. The effect of this is for the earlier passages that proclaim a message of peace to be over-ridden by later passages that exhort and justify violence.

Islam aims for the conquest of the whole world. And as everyone knows large ambitions are powerful motivators. This is buttressed by fear of Hell and longing for Paradise. The subordination of the whole world will bring the process of conquest to and end and it is in this sense that Muslims can sincerely say, ‘Islam is the religion of peace.’

Where Muslims gain control of an area they must impose Sharia. Amongst other things this legalises the collection of a tax on non-Muslims of twenty-five percent of their income and thus supports Islamification and simultaneously provides an economic incentive to convert. This double edged process helps to account to the tiny numbers of non-Muslims who live in Islamic states. Their repression is reinforced by other measures, such as the Sharia prohibition on building non-Islamic places of worship. Nor is it permissible to utter non-Islamic prayers within the hearing of a Muslim or make any public display of any other faith. The Sharia prohibition against non-Muslims having weapons completes the subjection.

No Muslim is allowed to make friends with a non-Muslim. A Muslim may pretend to be friends. Indeed, the Koran advocates deceit when dealing with infidels (that is, all non-Muslims). This should hardly be surprizing. Attempting to deceive the enemy is a well established tactic and Islam is at war with the whole of the non-Islamic world. Examples of such deceits abound. Islamic leaders will tell the world one thing and then state very different messages in Arabic. Islamic charities collect money ostensibly for orphans and siphon the funds into organisations that are actively engaged in killing infidels.

The Koran says, ‘War is deceit’ and it encourages the use of any pretext to justify attacks on non-Muslims. Merely not wishing to be a Muslim is sufficient to justify holy war, as it is an attempt to prevent the bringing of the Word of God. And the only certain way for a man to enter Paradise is by fighting in a holy war. So any act of aggression is justified as a defence of Islam. The Koran repeatedly asserts that Muslims should imitate the Prophet and this was his practice.

In Islam all Muslims are superior to all infidels. The mere presence of infidels in the holy places of Islam is considered sufficient cause for war. Islam makes a virtue of double standards and inequality. For example, Islam must be spread, but other faiths may not attempt to convert Muslims, any such action is an ‘aggression’. Any defamation of Islam must be met with violence, but Muslims are required to incessantly defame all non-Islamic ideas. Muslims are encouraged to build as many mosques and madrases in the non-Islamic world as possible, but no places of non-Muslim worship may be built under Sharia. Another illustration of this double standard and inequality is the value of a human life. It is forbidden to kill a Muslim without ‘just cause’, but it is not forbidden to kill an infidel.

Islam is a theocracy. In an Islamic state everyone is a practising Muslim, or they are beaten, taxed or killed into extinction. No one may criticise Islam, not even in private. In such a state, it is almost impossible to think outside of the Islamic norms. Islam is a totalitarianism. And its aim is world domination. It cannot be appeased. It sees our values of tolerance and freedom of speech as weaknesses that it can exploit in order to destroy those very values and our civilisation. Islam is a serious threat. A clear and present danger.

— X —

There you have his post, ‘as is-where is’, I haven’t modified it in any way. My only comment now will be:

If you don’t care a damn—and why should you,

is that the future you want for your kids?





brothers in Islam.png

 “Hey, bro … I can’t wait till Islam gets in. We’ll be safe then …”


what items like this can provoke—

Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama’s equation for America. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, hosting several closed-door conferences on “Defamation of Religion,” to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison. She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.

to read from source: CLICK HERE

—if true, one has to ask “Why?”.

In Quality circles it used to be a rule to ask ‘why’ and to keep on asking at least five times. Conventional wisdom had it that five times would get you close to the Root Cause of your problem—but when has there ever be any quality in politics?


if American; go choose your life-saving medicine from Arsenic or cyanide. Free elections, free choice, indulge~!




in one foul swoop (ref my previous post).

Read on …

German Justice Minister

Heiko Maas has promised to crackdown on the growing problem of multiple, forced, and underage marriages that immigrants from developing countries are bringing with them – but which have often been ignored by authorities.

“No one who comes to us has the right to put their cultural roots or their religious beliefs above our laws,” the politician from the center-left SPD party told Bild newspaper on Tuesday.


out of this problem. They cleverly split their laws such that they apply to Brits only—the imports, it appears, can do what they like with impunity. (Well done, Prime Minister May and your cronies. Good one, you’re off the hook) (and can even now blame the EU.)

“I know a few men with many wives,” Berlin Imam Abdul Adhim Kamouss admitted to Deutsche Welle. “The question is what does Maas want to do? I can understand it if he says that people who live here in Germany, and grew up here, cannot marry more than one woman – that is the law – but what about the people who come here and already have more than one wife? What are you supposed to do with those marriages?”


in one tiny package (given even half the chance) would be for the wannabe immigrant to

Take all your little wives to Saudi Arabia


and everyone is happy.

There you are, little worried immigrant … off you go, then … shoo~!

Toddle off to where you’ll be welcomed with Islamic open arms; and strictly in accordance with the tenets of Islam you’ll be Peaced, Mercied, and compassionately Charitised as much as your needy hearts require—you and all your wives, plus any little Muslims they have churned out for The Islamic Holy Cause.


all round. You get to keep your paedophiliac family ties intact and will be right on site for the next Hadj; the Saudis will further guarantee their own places in Paradise (for compassionately taking you in) and the Brits get some of the egg wiped off of the face of their law. Only some, but it would be a start …


that it must be confusing to anyone having to police the once-were-British laws right now.


in Britain there’s a cute wee birdie that lays its egg in the nests of other cute wee birdies. It’s called the Cuckoo. The cuckoo’s egg hatches into a nasty hairy thing that immediately tosses any other eggs out of the nest—often whilst the mother host vacantly watches with a benign birdy smile. So?

So I just thought I’d throw that one in to confuse you, my silly sense of the ironic. Make of it what you will …

Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 19.00.09.png


—and yes. I do know the difference ‘twixt foul, fell, and fowl.



month, year, decade … aaaah, stuff it: millennium.

A UN watchdog has slammed Saudi Arabia for subjecting minors as young as 15 to stoning, flogging, amputation, and even execution, contrary to the children rights convention, but a Saudi official reportedly responded that sharia is “above all laws and treaties.”

Note well that final sentence.

Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 10.15.15.png

Read and feel just a little … tiny … bit … queasy. But wait, it gets better—

The 18-member committee also strongly criticized Saudi Arabia’s traditional practices of punishing perpetrators with stoning, flogging, and limb amputation, demanding that it “repeal all provisions contained in legislation” authorizing such penalties.

Read more:  CLICK HERE

Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 10.21.04.pngThe referenced article then drags up boring stuff about human rights, the rights of minors, the rights of girls especially their God-sanctioned right to be married off young* yadda yadda yaada. All good stuff, and possibly helps us understand why Russia was bumped from being on the UN Human Rights Council.

To be replaced on said Council by whom?

Yup. By Saudi Arabia—the very paradigm of human rights in this world. Praises be to Allah~!


before you go all judgemental on me, how about popping over to a nice friendly sharia country for a wee holiday?

Screen Shot 2016-10-30 at 10.20.25.pngVacation in the security, the peace and compassion of Sharia, under the umbrella and all pervading rights of The Most Merciful and Most compassionate paradigm of Justice Himself; one Mr Allah Esq and his merry Profit Mo—

—who would never dream of being not-nice to foreigners dumb enough to visit them.

The joke? Oh, yes—if you can’t see it, then I’ll explain it as a wee bit of irony satirically made visible by the adroit and delicate subtle use of blatant sarcasm. No? Otherwise let me spell it out:

Saudi Arabia on the UN Council for Human Rights

—and you don’t get nothin’ no more hilarious than that. It’s priceless!*

In the meantime, you may now beam me up Scottie … there’s no intelligent life down here.cerberus

“Mr Argus, Sir … ?”

“Yes, my rather worried looking Little Virginia?”

“Sir—wouldn’t you think they’d get their act together?”

“Hush child! Someone might hear you …”

* As ‘young’ as age 6 (six~!) years from birth, but mercifully (praises to Him etc etc) randy goat husbands are not allowed to copulate with them until they reach the mature age of nine years. Coming soon to a western nation near you: Sharia Law. Get used to it …



senile erectile dysfunction?


under the heading of:

“What if we told you—”

Screen Shot 2016-10-29 at 21.31.17.png

  • that Islam doesn’t recognise any sovereignty but that of Islam itself?
  • that Islam isn’t a religion, but a borderless state?
  • that a Brit (or any other) passport is simply a convenience?
  • that Islamists respect force and strength, and only force and strength?
  • that any morals not derived from the Holy Koran are mere inconveniences?

Read/view more:  CLICK HERE


I may labour these points. They are important—to me they are important from an academic standpoint; to you they are not merely important, they could be vital. Ignore them at your peril (especially if you have a pretty little girl).

But wait: don’t we have laws protecting our children?

Screen Shot 2016-10-29 at 21.31.55.png

No, I guess not.

It seems our laws are now selective; which means no longer universally applied by ‘blind Justice’. So some people are privileged, others not … here, have a pretty wee kid—

8 yr old dies on her wedding nigh.png

—who didn’t survive her wedding night, according to the computerised voice reading the script. Propaganda? Eight years of age and died from internal injuries inflicted by a wildly enthusiastic ‘husband’. Coming soon to a sharia zone near you, regardless, so get used to it.

Screen Shot 2016-10-29 at 22.07.39.pngBut hubby would be free to marry again, and again, and again, and again (he’s allowed four, you know) and would be welcomed into Britain with all of them—whereas the natives are limited to only the one, of actual marriageable age; so hard luck on any drooling native paedophiles ‘cos they gotta wait quite a bit longer than age eight.

OR MAYBE I am just a prejudiced old fossil showing his age and unable to keep up with modern trends?

As for the nice Theresa May referenced above: who says that you have to let them in? As far as UK’s ‘once-was-law’ is concerned, these nice people simply should not (r) NOT be admitted. Send ’em over to the EU that made those EU laws. Let the EU folks sort ’em out … and if they won’t, they can send them home. (Fingerprint them first, for obvious reasons)*.


* It should be obvious that some of them will get home, pop the young ‘brides’ on the head with a hammer, and come back again unencumbered.

Fingerprints at the border might raise a few embarrassing questions, no?