web analytics

Contradiction in Terms

By ATWadmin On December 8th, 2006

‘And here’s your deep sea diver’s watch, Rodney.  Oh, the bloke said don’t get it in the water.’

‘Don’t get it in the water?  It’s a deep sea diver’s watch, Del!’

The above forms part of a gem moment in Only Fools and Horses, when Del Boy rewards his younger brother with a supposedly top-of-the-range diving watch.  Following his gift with a warning not to get the watch wet defeats the object and leaves Rodney in a state of perplexion.  Surely a diving watch is meant to get wet.  That’s the whole point.  It’s a bit like saying ‘surely integration cannot go hand-in-glove with the tenets of multiculturalism‘.  Not unless you’re the Del Boy of British politics, that is!

Tony Blair says immigrants and their descendants have a duty to integrate.  Having known and observed immigrant groups such as West Indians, Polish, Irish, Italians, Jewish, etc., I know of none who have refused to integrate into British society.  What I will spell out, because Tony is too damn gutless to do likewise, is that MUSLIMS have a duty to integrate.  This debate has not, and would not, emerge with regard to any other immigrant group.  Simply because no other immigrant group wants to take over this country. 

In the same breath Tone wants us to celebrate multiculturalism.  Thus, in one breath, he speaks out against such repulsive objects as the thing pictured in the link.  At the next he is imploring us to rejoice in the same underlying philosophy that gives Muslims the extra social muscle to go out and dress like complete tossers every time somebody makes a considered analysis of their theological dress code peculiarities.  This is not a ‘multicultural’ society.  This is an Anglo-cultural society that has, hitherto, tolerate minority cultures within its borders, for so long as they didn’t pose a threat to the country.  Given that Islamic ‘culture’ does pose a threat to this country, why should we give its proponents an inch?  Appealing to the Guardianistas goes down a ‘bomb’ (oops, a Freudian reference to a strand of Islamic culture, methinks) with the groupies from the O’Dwyer School of Islamic Obsequiousness.  It just makes the rest of us determined never to give in to the social model laid out for us by the Left.

5 Responses to “Contradiction in Terms”

  1. I wasn’t entirely sure on the definition on obseqiousness. In the context of Frank it could mean a number of things. But I looked it up

    obsequiousness noun meaning servility, subservience
    – abject or cringing submissiveness


  2. "the groupies from the O’Dwyer School"

    He must mean j0nz, Allan, DSD, and similar nutbars who follow me about here. I school them like red headed stepchildren.


    "I wasn’t entirely sure on the definition on obseqiousness."

    Given your shaky grasp of logic and arithmetic, your ignorance of words comes as no surprise.

  3. You hurt O’Dwyer’s feelings. He’s lashing out.


  4. ‘stepchildren.’?

    The bastard children of dhimmitude, more like! I didn’t even put your full name yet faced with such familiarity in truth you chose to suck your thumb in a pique of petulance.

    Rest assured Jonz’s grasp of the English language is above the mark, and far better than many of the assholes you spend so much Internet time defending.

  5. ^ Vogon poetry.

    And Monica must be miffed that I forgot to include her on my groupie list.