Rottweiler Puppy

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’re running late. But. Still. We here at Puppy Mansions wish health, wealth, happiness, and catastrophic failure to any encountered lefties to:

Cao: For getting us kick-started and for being a good, good friend.DJ: For being a pal and being the most routinely-hilarious British blog.

The Dick List: For being pals, for being the most routinely-hilarious US blog. And for giving the world the term Victimhood Poker.

Jack Idema, who’s just celebrated his first New Year as a free man after three years illegally-imprisoned in Afghanistan.

Okay, okay. Enough slop. Time for a little celebratory rock ‘n’ roll:

One of the more bizarre aspects of lefty-watching has always been the strange propensity of LLL’s, after years of gentle truth-massaging, to suddenly blurt-out what they’re really thinking. Today’s Tourettes’ Moment is brought to you by, one, Anthony Giddens:

The climate change bill is currently going through parliament and thankfully it has a wide measure of cross-party support. Britain will be the first country in the world to set itself legally binding targets for step-by-step reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

This Bill promises to either (A): Save life, the universe and everything by ‘binding’ Britain to the cutting of carbon emissions, or (B): Deliver to leftists the kind of power over free economies that the Soviet Union failed to give them.

Of course, whenever we members of the VRWC try to play this Stalin Card by pointing out that lefties are just using AGW as an excuse for implementing one of their beloved Five Year Plans, we’re typically shown a few photos of collapsing glaciers and dead polar bears, then told to stfu.

Time, then, for Anthony Giddens and that Tourettes moment of his we promised you earlier:

There will have to be a return to some form of economic planning

Well, alright. It’s easy to be flippant about this and ask whether, in ten years’ time, the increase in windfarm production will be enough to offset the numbers of electrically-challenged pensioners found frozen to death during the Warmest Winters In Human History ™.

… Alternatively, we could just wonder why it’s easier to count the number of pigs balanced, arse-down, on pinheads than the number of right-of-centre AGW-enthusiasts.

But. Wait. Because Anthony Giddens really is the gift that keeps on giving:

Lifestyle change and how to achieve it, it could be argued, are now the name of the game in key areas of politics. The range of issues involved is very wide. Climate change is the big daddy of them all, but others include the obesity epidemic, lifestyle related diseases - including high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and cancer - excessive drinking, drug dependence, antisocial behaviour and other areas besides. In many respects it is a new agenda, at least in terms of policy thinking.

Well, gosh, but first they came for your SUVs.

(Hat-tip to DK, who has some helpful advice for Giddens and his ilk involving self-pleasure followed by non-autoerotic suffocation.)

… So it’s fifteen days in jail for the Gillian ‘Teddy Bear’ Gibbons. Smart call, Sudanese Koranimals. After all, if you’d let the brainless dhimmi walk free, those genocide photos would leap back onto the top of Google’s ‘Sudan’ page faster than you could say, ‘kill all kuffars’. On the other hand, of course, the sight of Gillian being stripped, tied-up and flogged might have had an … um … detrimental effect upon the leftist-Islamist alliance.

So.

No dhimmi-bothering flogging for Gillian. Instead, she gets to spend a fortnight in the kind of jail cell that regular Sudanese felons can only dream of living in. Moreover, and fast-forward to the Teddy Bear Monster’s release, what’s the betting that we’ll all be listening to stories of how nice and kind and understanding her captors were?

Of course, should Gillian find herself stumped for an appropriately-grovelling, post-release press-release, the BBC are on hand with some suggestions:

What can’t be named Muhammad?
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers…

Although, before they do, we here at Puppy Mansions would very much like to point out that anything can, in fact, be named ‘Muhammad’. Pigs, stick insects, pint glasses filled with vodka, bookcases, grains of salt, and, of course, teddy bears – In Britain (which, last time we checked, the ‘B’ in BBC still stood for), you can name anything you damn well please ‘Muhammad’. Freedom of speech and all that …

The Arabic name Muhammad is now the second most popular name for baby boys in Britain, adding together its 14 different spellings in English.
Muslim families - of which there are an increasing number in the UK - often choose names which honour the Prophet or show a link to their religion in another way.

So self-detonating crazy = acceptable use of ‘Muhammad’, but cuddly toy = felony? It’s good to get that learned, eh folks?

But is it acceptable to name a toy Muhammad? The arrest and subsequent jailing of Ms Gibbons has sparked debate in Islamic circles. As is the case in so many religious matters, the question is open to interpretation.

Well, no. In fact it’s not open to any kind of interpretation at all. If you’re living in Sudan, the ‘question’ of PoMo naming is pretty much closed (unless you want to split hairs and debate the whole ‘flog ‘em or lock ‘em up issue). In Britain, meanwhile, the matter of Muhammad-naming is equally cut-and-dried. Here, we’re perfectly entitled to do stuff like this:

… Which is something that Islamist front-group the Muslim Council of Britain’s Ibrahim Mogra grasps in exactly the same way that Hollywood gangsters grasp the need to play nice. Though only as long as they git da respect:

“If someone clearly intends to insult and cause offence with a toy in the form of a pig, for example, and someone knowingly and intentionally names it Muhammad, we know exactly where they’re going with it - the idea is to cause offence. If it’s just a miscalculation, we don’t need to go overboard.”

What a standup guy! We mean, not only does Ibi offer to forgive our PoMo-naming sins, but he actually bothers to take the further step of pointing out that if we don’t intentionally engage in RoP-bating, there’ll be no need for Muslims to ‘go overboard’. So show some respect, folks, and you won’t find yourselves waking up next to a severed camel’s head.

… But perhaps BBC drones haven’t quite convinced their readers re: the need to abandon freedom in favour of Cultural Cringe. Perhaps we knuckle-dragging proles need to hear from ’specialist on Sudan’, Gill Lusk:

“People [in Sudan!] are very forgiving of foreigners, particularly Europeans. Nobody would think she was trying to offend them - they would just think she was ignorant.”

Well, alright, we’ll bite. If the deranged, mass-murdering, Islamoscum running Sudan are willing to put a stop to this:

Perhaps concerned that some, small corner of the non-Muslim world was stubbornly clinging to the notion that members of the RoP are … well … even remotely sane, the Sudanese leg of the Global Jihad have unearthed the Dread Teddy Bear of Blasphemy:

A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting Islam’s Prophet, after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.
[…]
The BBC has learned the charge could lead to six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine.

Now, granted, when dealing with the kind of culture that gets its jollies by taking bets on whether the child their menfolk are about to hack out of a pregnant woman’s body will be a boy or a girl, it is kind of difficult to work out whether giving a British schoolteacher 40 lashes for improperly-naming a stuffed bear proves that the Sudanese are getting even crazier, or just that they feel the need for what passes for comic relief among Islamopaths. (Hell, even debating this point feels a bit like asking whether Jeffrey Dahmer got more of a kick out of his necrophilia or his cannibalism.)

Only, here’s the thing: while the sickos in Sudan hack and slash and flog and slaughter, their enablers in the Western left frame the debate in the following way:

The school’s director, Robert Boulos, said: “This is a very sensitive issue. We are very worried about her safety.
“This was a completely innocent mistake. Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam.”
[…]
Rick Widdowson the headteacher of Garston Church of England Primary School, where Gillian worked for ten years, added: “We are an Anglican school and I know for a fact that Gillian would not do anything to offend followers of any faith.
“Certainly she is also very worldly wise and she is obviously aware of the sensitivities around Islam.”

Well, alright. The soon-to-be-lashed Miss Gibbons’ co-workers probably aren’t going to give interviews questioning whether naming teddy bears after a mass-murdering, sociopathic child-rapist is an insult to stuffed animals everywhere. But. Still. Do any of us really believe that it’s even possible to be offended by a bloody teddy bear? We mean, do the lefties at the helm of this (and numerous other) BBC stories actually think that anyone, however bearded and crazy, could feel anger over a teddy bear’s name? Or is what we’re witnessing closer to a kind of Pavlovian reflex, where L3 have conditioned themselves to respond to the words ‘Muslim anger’ with an automated, ‘Mustn’t cause offence, mustn’t cause offence’?

*Sigh* Okay lefties. Let’s go the long way around: Fanaticism 101.

If you happen to be a fanatic in search of power, the fast route to success lies in Getting People To Hate. It doesn’t matter what they hate, really (though, historically, Jews have always been a popular choice). The important thing is that they hate something. Jews, gays, kuffars, Americans – Who gives a damn, really? Just concentrate on cultivating that hate by any and all means.

Thus: If the world gives you Hamas, make Palestinian victimhood. And if the world gives you democracy in Iraq, make a War On All Muslims. And, as Miss Gibbons’ plight goes to show, if all the world gives you is a teddy bear named Mohammed, make Offended Muslim Sensitivities.

If nothing else, credulous media-lefties the world over will get those abortions-by-machete you’ve been performing off of Google’s Sudan News page for you:

Bonus prediction: When Miss Gibbons pops back into the media spotlight, what’s the betting she’ll be blathering the usual idiocy about how much she ‘respects Sudanese culture’, how ’sorry she is for causing offence’, etc?

Well, Sudanese Islamoscum, we here at Puppy Mansions have got your respectful, inoffensive culture bang to rights:

Not ours, but someone’s (obviously). Whatever. Since DK had his lesbian robo-love Bjork moment last week, we here at Puppy Mansions have been digging through our old Sugarcubes albums:

One of the more enduring problems lefties encounter when trying to sell the rest of us on the idea that there’s nothing violent or creepy about Islam is that, sooner or later, they have to prove this point:

Does Islam have a sense of humour?*

Al-Beeb, of course, are gearing up to make the case for a resounding, ‘Yes!’. But. Still. What does it say about a belief-system when you have to ask a question like that in the first place? Hmm?

“There’s nothing better than having a laugh. I love going to see comedy, but people seem to have this impression that Muslims and comedy don’t go together; that somehow we can’t reconcile humour with our faith.”
Keen comedy fan Tosifa Mustafa nails a widely-held stereotype, before dismissing it in the same breath. It’s “just not the case,” she says.

In a sense, of course, Tosifa’s quite correct. Of course Muslims can caper with giddy delight. Why, they even hold gigantic, impromptu street-parties with smiling children and free candy and everything:

So part of the problem is the sneaking suspicion that nothing gives certain sections of the RoP a bigger belly-laugh than the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of screaming infidels.

Another annoyance is that, when a little fun is poked back at the House of War itself, the smiles and candy are removed faster than a pig caught tap-dancing on the Ka’ba:

[To be fair, though, the floppy dalek in question could be grinning her nutty, little head-off – Who would know?]

Still, since not even Beeboid drones can deny the connection between line-drawings, humourlessness, and flaming Danish embassies, Plan B is to try and pin the blame on, well, anyone but bearded crazies armed with petrol bombs:

While Muslim comedians seem confident about poking fun at their culture, non-Muslims often skirt the issue of Islam itself for fear of the reaction.
“With comedy, if you ‘own’ a space, in other words if you’re from a particular faith or background, it grants you a licence to poke fun at it,” says Marc Blake, a stand-up comic and comedy tutor at London’s City University.
“But comics at the moment are more fearful of poking fun at Islam because of the culture of political correctness than they are of any backlash from Muslim people.”

Because, of course, cringing, PC lefties are well known for offering money in exchange for severed heads. Oh. Wait.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A Pakistani cleric announced a $1 million bounty for killing a cartoonist who drew the Prophet Muhammad caricatures, as thousands rallied across the country Friday and authorities arrested scores of protesters.

To recap, then:

• All Muslims laugh
• At least some Muslims find images of self-defenestrating kuffars/kuffars immolated in burning jet-fuel/kuffars crushed under thousands of tons of falling skyscraper-rubble hilariously funny
• Some Muslims threaten genocide on the grounds that line-drawings upset them
• Although the Islamic world’s version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? is lighter on phone-a-friend and heavier on hack-a-head, the real reason lefties don’t treat us to a comedy matinee that ends with Scarey Mo singing about the brightside of life as he chokes to death on poison is because they’re scared of what other PC lefties might think

And the moral of this story, children? That if you want to get the BBC to throw political correctness under the nearest bus, all you have to do is ask them to discuss Islamic humour without referencing infidels swandiving from the 101st floor.

Oh, and as for MoToons? We here at Puppy Mansions have got your MoToons right here:

*Does Peter Sutcliffe have a sense of humour? Questions, questions.

Question: If you were tasked with doing a roundup of memorable Hugo Chavez quotes, what’s the betting that you’d excuse yourself by claiming you’d be busy all morning gnawing your own right foot off?

Chavez’s colourful quotations

Hugo Chavez’s verbal abuse of world leaders has become legendary. At the weekend, the Venezuelan leader was told to “shut up” by the Spanish King, Juan Carlos, after attacking Spain’s former prime minister and the monarch, himself.
Since his election in a landslide victory in 1998, Mr Chavez has largely fired up his rhetoric against the United States and her allies.
Below is a selection of the most memorable of Mr Chavez’s colourful quotations.

… And, quite predictably, the BBC’s drones choose to list Chavez’s insults in the following order (and in the words of the Beeb’s own sub-headings):

• Bush: ‘The Devil Comes’
• Bush: ‘Danger or Donkey’
• Condi: ‘Don’t Mess With Me, Little Girl’
• Blair: ‘Imperialist Pawn’
• Israel: ‘The New Holocaust’

It would, of course, be harder to criticise the Beeboids responsible for this juvenile claptrap if they’d stirred themselves to mention stuff like this:

Translation: the guy with the mask and gun is almost as big a Chavez-fan as the average BBC journalist. As for the pair doing their best to avoid getting shot at, they … um … probably weren’t part of 1998’s ‘landslide’.

Well, alright, so a couple of Chavez’s trained monkeys sticking a gun into a Venezuelan student’s face isn’t exactly a ‘New Holocaust’. But. Still. The point here is that the current shutdown of dissent at gunpoint in Venezuela is surely more newsworthy than the BBC’s sniggering, primary-school retrospective of Chavez’s ravings. (And it is, surely, more newsworthy than the pathetic ‘teargas and water’ report Beeboids turned in on the protests a week ago, replete with this ‘helpful’ photo-op from Chavez’s long-suffering stoormtroopers:

The poor dears.

Sure, riots are no fun for anyone. But. If you were looking for a better example of the endemic left-wing bias among Beeboids, it would be difficult to locate a better one than this.

Unconvinced? Then look at it this way: King Carlos’ ’shut up’ presents the journalistic world with two choices:

• Fully expose Chavez for the loudmouth, crackpot strongman that he is
• Indulge in sixth-form sniggering over years’-old insults while the actual children of Chavez’s (ten-year-old-and-counting) ‘landslide victory’ dodge the kind of socialist love-missives that only the BBC seems capable of ignoring.

<

Unique way of funding, and all that.

One of the Global Jihad’s more enduring mysteries was solved today. See, while bearded crazies the world over have been self-detonating in the hope of trading-up the goats of this world for the eager virgins of the next, it’s always been difficult to work out quite what one of those ‘lucky’ 72 would look like. Until today, at least:

An airport worker who wrote poems about beheadings is the first woman to be found guilty under new terror laws.
Samina Malik, who liked to call herself a “lyrical terrorist”, called for attacks on the West and described “poisoned bullets” capable of killing an entire street in her poetry.
The 23-year-old Muslim wrote of her desire to become a martyr and listed her favourite videos as the “beheading ones”.

And she’s not kidding. Whereas we kuffars, at our best, can throw an Elizabeth Barrett Browning or Sylvia Plath into the cultural melting-pot, the Islamic world’s premiere poetess has the following to say for herself:

It’s not as messy or hard as you may think. / It’s all about the flow of the wrist. / Sharpen the knife to its maximum. / And before you begin to cut the flesh. / Tilt the fool’s head to its left. / Saw the knife back and forth. / No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream.

… And so on. And on. And on.

Of course, it’s tempting to make the argument that Samina’s outpourings are, in fact, the very worst poetry ever written by a non-Vogon.

But. Such criticism, perhaps, misses out on the sheer interest-value of the thing. See, we keep hearing about the absolutely huge contribution Muslims have made to the modern world. You know the sort of thing we mean: how bearded crazies throughout history put their head-hacking on hold in order to invent maths, geometry, physics, space-travel, quantum mechanics, baseball, football, television and the paper-clip. Well, alright. Let’s put this to the acid test:

Who is the most famous, non-Muslim, female writer in Britain today? Austen, Bronte, Bronte, Bronte, Eliot – Oh, but, look, we really can’t be bothered to spend the next fortnight typing the names of our fairer geniuses. Suffice to say, non-Muslimwise, we’ve produced rather a large number of talented women.

Now. Who is currently the most famous, Muslim, female writer? Well, that would be … um … Samina Malik, wouldn’t it?

And what great truths does this Literary Colossus of Floppy-Dalekdom have to impart? Hmm?

Continue to slice back and forth. / You’ll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe. / But don’t stop. / Continue with all your might.

While this particularly sick puppy waits on sentencing, it really is worth reflecting on two things:

One:
The blue night plants, the little pale blue hill
In your sister’s birthday picture start to glow.
The orange pompons, the Egyptian papyrus
Light up. Each rabbit-eared
Blue shrub behind the glass

Exhales an indigo nimbus,
A sort of cellophane balloon.
The old dregs, the old difficulties take me to wife.
Gulls stiffen to their chill vigil in the drafty half-light;
I enter the lit house.

Two: We have a civilization. Samina and her crazy pals — Don’t.

Now, brace yourselves, folks, because the BBC are about to reveal a hitherto unknown Truth:

You can alter your attraction to the opposite sex simply by looking straight at them and smiling, research suggests.
A study of hundreds of volunteers at Stirling and Aberdeen Universities found averting the eyes even a fraction can make you appear less attractive.
In the Royal Society’s Proceedings B journal, they say the direction of gaze plays a role alongside a symmetrical face or healthy skin.

Well, gosh, but it’s a good thing we Brits spend untold billions of our hard-earned cash on Wacademia (plus an extra-cool £3.5 billion on their state-sponsored amplifier-of-choice).

Because, otherwise, we’d still be adopting the 1666 approach to courtship:

Of course, there are just bound to be a few, deeply-unnuanced proles out there who’ll try to point out that the need to smile and maintain eye-contact with prospective love-interests is pretty much how the entire human race has been approaching the thorny problem of reproduction since … oh … time-immemorial. (Question: should lefties continue to push the whole ‘un-symetrical’ and ‘poor-skin’ angles, or will that see them falling foul of the brand, new, Incitement to Hatred Against the … um … Differently-Abled legislation? Decisions. Decision. Decisions.)

Perhaps the best way to settle this is with some hard science:

An expert said it may stop people wasting energy on pointless courtships.

Because, you know, there are just sooo many people who mistake scowls and averted eyes for, ‘I want you to take me roughly from behind, unsymmetrically-faced zitty-boy’.

Let’s try that whole science-thing again, shall we?

In some pictures, there was an eight-fold difference in ratings between the “straight to camera” and averted gazes.

… And this is what passes for a modern, British scientific breakthrough? Because, by kicking-out time tonight, there’ll be about 3 million binge-drunken Brits reaching the same conclusion. What does this mean? That the Beeb’s science wonks are right on the money for once? Or that the fastest route to hard, uncomplicated sex involves sinking twenty pints of lager before wandering through a nightclub with a big, cheesy grin and a fixated stare?

One of the paper’s authors, Dr Claire Conway, said: “People prefer faces that appear to ‘like’ them, showing that attraction is not simply about physical beauty.”

Dr. Conway’s next obviousness-project: Why People Scream When Being Dunked In Boiling Lava – A Study In Facial Symmetry.

Professor Ruth Mace, a researcher into evolutionary anthropology at University College London, said that while this seemed an obvious principle [!!!!!!!!!]
[…
… [I]t suggests that how attractive you find someone is governed partly by how likely you are to be successful.”

Scientific proof, then, as to why the RottyPup/

Adriana Lima

romance was always doomed to failure.

Now that Mr. Happy is safely ensconced in Downing Street, the nuttier elements of the British left (i.e., 100% of the swine) are having the kind of field day not seen since their last complete trashing of the country back in 1979.

For instance, and via the Green Arrow, comes news of an attempt to muck up Christmas:

Christmas should be downgraded in favour of festivals from other religions to improve race relations, says an explosive report.
Labour’s favourite think-tank says that because it would be hard to “expunge” Christmas from the national calendar, ‘even-handedness’ means public organisations must start giving other religions equal footing.

This charming, little plan reaches us via a scary-sounding something called the Institute for Public Policy Research, who were, we learn, the jokers behind such hugely popular schemes as National ID Cards and a weight-related tax on the contents of other people’s dustbins. So, really, what this particular lefty cabal get up to is to ‘public’ what ’shotgun blast to the head’ is to ‘increased life-expectancy’.

Of course, for lefties desiring to comprehensively wreck Britain (second only on their to-do list to the comprehensive wrecking of the US), the last thirty years have been the political equivalent of Tantric sex – Sure, they’ve won most of the battles in the culture war, but, since 1979, they haven’t had a PM willing to actually urge them to take his country roughly from behind, condoms and foreplay be damned.

But. Still. There really is something quite creepy about this whole ‘downgrading’ of Christmas. Why do that? We mean, why even attempt to interfere with a thoroughly enjoyable, two-week national celebration? To what end?

[I]mmigrants should be required to acquire some proficiency in English and other aspects of British culture “if - but only if - the settled population is willing to open up national institutions and practices to newcomers and give a more inclusive cast to national narratives and symbols”.
It adds: “Even-handedness dictates that we provide public recognition to minority cultures and traditions.
“If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas - and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to - then public organisations should mark other religious festivals too.

Gosh, but it’s almost as if the IPPR think they could prevent us from celebrating Christmas, isn’t it? More to the point, it’s almost as if they believe that, with a wave of the lefty-wand, they could persuade sane people to start celebrating Ramadan. What’re the odd on this? Two weeks spent washing mincepies down with copious quantities of alcohol vs. four weeks of starvation for the pleasure of a child-molesting moon-god. Even-handedness or no even-handedness, you’d have to be crazy to take that bet.

… Which point kind of begs the question: What are these people thinking?

“The empire is gone, church attendance is at historically low levels, and the Second World War is inexorably slipping from memory.”

The empire? Church attendance? The Second World War? Well, damn, much as the attitudes of we here at Puppy Mansions probably differ from the IPPR line on all three of these – What in the name of all that is holy and unholy do the British Empire, the CoE and WWII have to do with Christmas? Huh? No, no. Let’s think on the fact that we’ve been celebrating this particular festival for almost 2000 years, then say, again, Huh?!!

See, while we could just shrug-off the IPPR’s drivel as just another example of the lefty monomania over all things dead, white and male, the danger here is that while they believe wrecking our culture will be enough to pave the way to some utopia-to-be-announced, it’s a very safe bet that large numbers of bearded crazies are not only wise to this plan, but actively planning what that particular announcement will contain.

The superbly organised event included live entertainment, interactive workshops and video shows. Organised by the MCB, supported by the Mayor of London, and in association with Islamic Relief, ‘Eid in the Square’ served as the best testament of London’s attractiveness – for its cultural diversity, harmony and vibrancy.
[…]
When at the end of the programme, organiser Harun Rashid Khan took the podium and asked, “Do you want to have it again?” there was a resounding ‘Yes!’

See, this is the problem with all post-Soviet leftist thinking – Deranged fanaticism only achieves results (bad ones, admittedly, but results nonetheless) when it aims to build something. If all you’re trying for is the destruction of what exists, it’s worth bearing in mind that Islamofascists, like nature (only dumber), abhor vacuums.