23 Jul

Our One True Statesman

If you see me going around with a big grin on my face, it’s because for the first time in nearly forty years it looks as if I shall get the Labour Party leader – and possible future prime minister – I want. I refer of course to that courageous patriot Jeremy Corbin who showed true magnanimity by entertaining Gerry Adams and other IRA terrorists in  London a few weeks after the Brighton bomb. Jeremy is not only patriotic, he is progressive and far-sighted: he wants rid of the Queen and all that Establishment tat and much prefers that Britain should become a republic.

He has a developed gift for international statesmanship, evidenced by his close affiliation with the Marxist regime in Venezuela and his willingness to cede sovereignty of the Falklands to Argentina

He is progressive too on educational matters and would abolish grammar schools – though he attended one himself – and academies. He is gifted with the visionary insight which recognises the far superior quality of the state comprehensive system.

His defence and foreign relations policies are nothing short of enlightened. A long-serving member of CND, he knows that Britain will be a far safer place once we abolish our nuclear weapons unilaterally. And he has nothing but scorn for the flawed logic which says that the only country ever to have suffered a nuclear attack was Japan – which didn’t possess nuclear weapons at the time.

And anyone who hates the Israelis and supports the Palestinian Arabs – he calls Hamas and Hezbollah “friends” – surely understands the meaning of democracy and civilisation

Jeremy Corbyn is very far from being a political nerd or a mere apparatchik. In fact there is something of the renaissance man about him, and certainly of the literary man – as evidenced by his weekly column in The Morning Star.

And he is one of the most humane and tender-hearted of men. Not only would he ban the importation of foie gras, but he campaigns against the Yulin Dog Meat Festival.  

Economic policy is truly his strongest point, as demonstrated by his intention to tax the well-off until the pips squeak. He proposes no upper limit on the highest rate of taxation, a large increase in corporation tax and a 7% rise in national insurance contributions. And he is wise enough to see the need to re-nationalise the railways.

I hear that membership of the Labour Party costs less than a fiver. I think I shall invest and then I can vote for Comrade Corbyn in the leadership election. It is but one step from Labour leader to the high office of prime minister, and I am confident Jeremy will make it.

My earlier preferences for prime minister were Michael Foot and John Prescott, but alas these came to nothing. Jeremy will put that right.

I can’t end without mention of my attendant joy – approaching ecstasy – when I behold this morning the expressions on the faces of Margaret Beckett and Frank Field who so wisely proposed Jeremy for the leadership.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
22 Jul

“Not Nazis, but Nazists”–Churchill

Our prime minister Mr Churchill made a great speech today in which he said – after taking a fortifying sip of his Pol Roger – “The enemy we face, my friends, is not the Nazis. It is Nazists. Nazism, as Herr Hitler has made very clear to me, is a politics of peace and love – or, as he put it in that strange articulation he favours, ‘Freundschaft und Liebe’.”

The premier stressed that nothing should be done to alienate the Nazi community here in Britain and he added, “Let us be quite clear about this: the overwhelming majority of Nazis in Britain uphold British values and they deplore the Nazists as much as you or I do.”

Mr Churchill was very passionate: “The fact that a few Nazist hotheads and lone wolves have gone around smashing up Jewish shops and assaulting their proprietors should not distract us from the reality, which is that most Nazis wish for nothing other than the peace and prosperity of England, and indeed of all Europe.”

The prime minister made it very plain that the Nazi occupation of Alsace Lorraine, the Anschluss with Austria, the subjugation of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland were all a legitimate response to our own aggressive policies. “What we need more than everything else,” Mr Churchill said “is a thoroughgoing policy of appeasement. If we reassure the Nazi leaders – peace be upon them – that we have no quarrel with them and that we could wish for nothing more than that they come over here and take their rightful place in British society, then I think I can reassure our people that we shall have no more trouble from them.”

Mr Churchill went on to make the inspired suggestion that we might give Nazis suitable political work to do in such as Tower Hamlets and encourage them to form connections with schools in Birmingham. He was emphatic: “It’s nonsense to say that the Nazis don’t integrate into British society. They entirely support the view that we are all part of one united community. Only yesterday, when I was paying a visit to the local synagogue, my good friend Heinrich Himmler assured me that the Nazis have nothing but the utmost affection for the Jewish people.”

At this point I’m sorry to have to report that there was a certain amount of booing and jeering: “Mr Churchill, you’re nothing but an appeaser and a traitor! Can’t you understand that these Nazis mean the death of us?”

But the prime minister was adamant, unmovable: “Let me say again, it is only a very few who pervert the Nazi tradition of peace and love. These are not true Nazis. I do not wish to see these, our friends and brothers the Nazis, victimised and persecuted, and therefore I shall bring before parliament a bill to outlaw Naziophobia – I shall make it a crime.”

Meanwhile, bombs were going off everywhere. The Nazists were embarked on a reign of terror. All Europe was in danger. There had been Nazist terrorist outrages in Spain, France and in England too. But courageously Mr Churchill insisted, “These terrorists in no way represent the great tradition of Nazism.”

The prime minister then raised two fingers and declared: “I shall not rest until we have secured complete victory over the Naziophobes.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
18 Jul

Princess Elizabeth and the Hitlerjugend

Was the Queen a member of the Hitler Youth when she was Princess Elizabeth, aged six?

You might be led to think so if you turn to the seven pages dedicated by The Sun – sister paper to The Times’ – to showing the young princess making the Nazi salute. I don’t think so. The princess, with her sister Margaret and her mother Queen Elizabeth, were clearly egged on by Uncle Teddy – the inadequate creep and narcissistic dandy who was soon after to abdicate the Throne and travel with the sybaritic gold-digger Mrs Simpson to be photographed giving help and comfort to Adolf in Berlin.

The year was 1933, when Hitler came to power. His election victory was on all the front pages and obviously the Nazi salutes were part of an ill-considered party game or charade concocted by the treacherous Prince Edward.

Princess Elizabeth’s attitude towards the Nazis can be inferred from her enthusiastic active service during the Second World War in the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) – the women’s branch of the army.

What, apart from bald sensationalism, could have persuaded The Times’ sister paper to make a song and dance out of this trivial incident eight decades old?

A nasty streak of republicanism, that’s what. There is plenty of anti-monarchy stuff in the British press, amounting to a colossal gesture of ingratitude for the unsurpassed devotion to her people and country which the Queen has demonstrated  throughout her life.

If the toads and snides in the Murdoch organisation are looking for the hint of treachery, they are looking in the wrong place. But I can tell them where to look.

In the 1930s the traitors were the whole British political class and establishment; every political party supported the appeasing of Hitler who was given a free hand to take what he wanted in Europe.

There was one man, with a very few colleagues and friends, who saw that  that toadying to Hitler would not bring peace but catastrophe.

If you’re looking for signs of treachery in 1930s Britain, don’t pick on a child’s silly charade.

The very emblem and image of treachery was that picture of Neville Chamberlain waving his piece of paper, while foolishly proclaiming “Peace for our time!”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
16 Jul

Che Guevara among the fishermen

Pope Francis has been taken to task. Asked why he had rarely spoken of hard-working, tax-paying families, instead concentrating on the marginalised and poverty-stricken, he said: “You’re right. It’s an error of mine not to think about this,”

Well, it would indeed be nice to see him take a few minutes off from his effusive rhetoric about the picturesque poor. True, Jesus commanded his disciples to care for the poor, but his attitude towards poverty was rather more complex than that of Guardian-reading sentimentalists. Jesus actually called the poor blessed. Why? “Because theirs is the kingdom of God.” And when he was anointed with expensive ointment, a Guardian-reading disciple protested, “This ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.”

Jesus replied, “Ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always.”

That wasn’t very Christian of Christ, was it, Francis?

Jesus also said that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven, the province of the poor. So you would think that the Pope might be led to have sympathy for the rich and spend more time and effort helping them in their hard task of entering the kingdom.

Francis’ predecessor Benedict XVI is one of the greatest theologians since St Augustine. Francis –  great self-publicist as he is and a close friend of vox pop – is no theologian. But he must have attended Sunday School when he was a nipper. There he would have read, or had read to him, the Gospel stories in which Jesus has much to say about the poor, but where he is also seen spending much time with the rich and influential.

He eats often in the houses of rich Scribes and Pharisees. He also eats with “publicans and sinners.” But when we hear that word publican, we should not imagine that it connotes a scene in which Jesus likes to go out of a night with his disciples – the lads – for a few pints at The Rose & Crown in downtown Capernaum. The publicans were not landlords. They were public servants – actually tax-gatherers for the occupying Roman power. Naturally, they were loathed by the poor.

Jesus loved the poor? Of course he did. But he also loved those well off enough to put on a wedding that lasted ten days, attended by numerous guests. Not only did Jesus attend the wedding – with the lads – but when the wine ran out, he created a further 180 gallons of the stuff.

The Son of God who said, “Blessed are the poor” also said, “I am come that ye might have life; and have it more abundantly.”

The Pope and just about every bishop and clergyman you have ever heard are so fond of preaching that mawkish Christmas sermon about Jesus being born into poverty in a stable. As if the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity had been a lesser condescension if he had been born Mayor of Tunbridge Wells.

He wasn’t born into poverty. His earthly father was of the house and lineage of King David. Joseph was an established craftsman and a member of the middle class,

We know the Pope is a Catholic – but does he read the Bible? 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
13 Jul

Equality is bad for you

The so called agreement just announced between Greece and the EU will have a devastating impact on poor people in Greece. This agreement effectually confiscates Greek assets and imposes the most severe austerity on the Greek people. It was concluded in order to preserve the Euro – the instrument for ensuring the survival of the EU’s centrally-planned, one size fits all, European economy.

Socialists try to create a more equal society. They believe in levelling. Unfortunately, owing to the nature of socialism itself, that philosophy always ends up achieving the opposite of its aims. The other day, Alexander Boot put this in a nutshell in his persistently enlightening blog where he says we must not confuse the socialists’ slogans with their practical policies:

“All socialist economies (which is to say all modern economies) have the widest gap between the rich and the poor. And, the less developed the socialist economy, the greater the gap, the harder the poor are hit. For example, in the 19th century, the era of dog-eat-dog capitalism, the average ratio of income earned by US corporate directors and their employees was 28:1. Yet in 2005, when socialism had made heavy inroads into the post-New-Deal US economy, this ratio stood at 158:1.”

There are comparable figures for Britain

In other words, the less money there is around, the more of it will be grabbed by the rich and the poor will consequently get poorer.

This is the truth expressed by Friedrich Hayek in his classic The Road to Serfdom (1944)

In fact, all socialist roads lead to serfdom. When socialism is practised moderately, the poverty of those in the lower reaches of the social scale is quite moderate. Where socialism is practised more thoroughly, poverty consequentially becomes more severe. Where socialism is practised absolutely – one might say ideally – the poverty of the poorest is absolute too. Moreover, extreme socialism always ends up in dictatorship, the oppression of the people and, in the most notorious cases such as the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao, the socialist experiment culminates in gulags and mass slaughter: by Stalin at least twenty millions and by Mao around sixty millions.

But socialism sounds so promising, so nice, kind and humanitarian. So what goes wrong? It is always the same thing which goes wrong: the replacement of the free market by the planned economy.

The free market has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world. So why are such notable humanitarians as the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury so down on it?

I described socialism as an experiment. Why do we keep on repeating an experiment which always fails?

As Einstein said, “To keep on doing the same thing while expecting different results is the first sign of madness.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
06 Jul

The collapse of the Fourth Reich?

Is Greece about to take her leave of the Fourth Reich?

“Fourth Reich” – what’s that when it’s out? Surely Germany is a model of modern democracy, having thrown off long ago all that Fascist nonsense and the ambition to control Europe? That’s what it looks like on the surface. But the fact is that what Bismarck failed to achieve by military means in 1870, the Kaiser by similar means in 1914 and Hitler again in 1939, Frau Merkel has accomplished by peaceful process.

Well, peaceful if peace may be defined as a bullying economic hegemony accompanied by consistent financial punishment of the southern states in the EU. EU economic policy – which really means German economic policy –has caused permanent recession in Italy, Portugal, Spain and, of course, Greece, with high unemployment and cuts in wages for those fortunate enough to be still in work. Youth unemployment in those countries is at a catastrophically high level – in Greece over 60%.

This is hardly a recipe for the peace and stability which the EU compliments itself on having established and sustained for forty years.

I have suggested here that Germany dictates events in Europe. That’s not quite true. She does it with the connivance of France. So we should really speak of the Franco-German axis – an extension of the collaboration which existed during the Second World War.

But now Greece is showing that, to quote Yeats, “the centre cannot hold.” Perhaps today we are seeing the beginning of the end of the European Project?

The EU as presently constituted never could hold as a satisfactory political arrangement. For that, there would need to be a single currency. Well, there is a single currency, isn’t there, the euro? On the face of it, yes. But a single currency is not workable when imposed upon countries with such disparate economic bases. For while Germany is a modern, industrialised technocracy producing and exporting top-of-the-range motor cars, washing machines and a thousand different sorts of gadgets and machines, the southern states are still largely agricultural: Greece, in particular, survives (or barely survives) on olive oil and tourism.

In order to preserve the illusion of the EU, two things are required: subsidies from the advanced nations of northern Europe – principally Germany – and ever fiercer demands – also issued by Germany – for permanent austerity in Italy, Portugal, Spain and Greece.

You can try this solution if you like, but you can’t keep it up. First, because the German people are fed up of paying taxes to support the inefficient southern regimes which they regard as a shambles; and secondly, as we see today in Greece, the people of the southern nations will not put up with perpetual austerity.

A Grexit is a distinct possibility – though never underestimate the lies, fixings, institutionalised skulduggery, threats and bribes with which the leaders of the corrupt bureaucracy of the EU will resort to in order to preserve the facade of political union.

And if the Greeks leave, the other southern countries might think about following them.

Personally, I should like to see Britain lead the rush for the door: better off out. 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
05 Jul

Prayers before a capitulation

Here are three prayers issued by the Church of England for the minute’s silence in commemoration of those slaughtered on the beach in Tunisia.

“Father, you know our hearts and share our sorrows.We are hurt by our parting from those whom we loved: when we are angry at the loss we have sustained,when we long for words of comfort,yet find them hard to hear,turn our grief to truer living,our affliction to firmer hope in Jesus Christ our Lord.Amen.”

***
”Lord, have mercyon those who mourn who feel numb and crushed and are filled with the pain of grief,whose strength has given up. You know all our sighing and longings:be near to us and teach us to fix our hope on you through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

***
”Lord, do not abandon us in our desolation.Keep us safe in the midst of trouble,and complete your purpose for us through your steadfast love and faithfulness,in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.”

No mention of the rightness of our cause in waging war on a terrorising barbarism, only the gospel of touchy-feeliness.

“Numb and crushed…strength given up.” There speaks the church militant! I’m only surprised that these prayers were not accompanied by a rubric saying, At this moment the officiating priest shall raise a white flag.

What a falling off there has been from better days and better ways! In AD 732 the Christian Charles Martel fought the Battle of Tours to halt the Muslim takeover of Europe. Again in 1571 an alliance of Catholic maritime states repulsed the Muslim threat at Lepanto.

So here is a prayer in time of war from The Book of Common Prayer (1662) – a book which, of course, the C. of E. has discarded:

“O Almighty God, King of all kings, and Governor of all things, whose power no creature is able to resist, to whom it belongeth justly to punish sinners, and to be merciful to them that truly repent: Save and deliver us, we humbly beseech thee, from the hands of our enemies; abate their pride, asswage their malice, and confound their devices; that we, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore from all perils, to glorify thee, who art the only giver of all victory; through the merits of thy only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

And here is the second verse of the National Anthem:

”O Lord our God arise,

Scatter her enemies,

And make them fall:

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On Thee our hopes we fix:

God save us all.”

I look forward to the day – not to be long delayed – when the pusillanimous, faithless, gutless C. of E. issues A form of prayer for a people who died of political correctness.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
04 Jul

The sage Russell Brand

I can’t promise to do every day what I am about to do but, just for once, let me be the bringer of glad tidings. The philosopher, sage, seer and political genius and all round offensive loudmouth creep Russell Brand has declared he is off to Syria. I’m sorry I am not able to bring you the further good news that he won’t be coming back.

His Syrian expedition raises a serious question: can we afford to lose this man who works so hard to add to the nation’s merriment?

Brand alleges that the British government is using Islamic State, as an excuse to impose terror measure on the “domestic population.”

He adds: “The threat of IS is conceptual and abstract, unless you’re in Syria.” That sentence is inane even by Brand’s high standards of hyperbole. How about the thousands massacred by IS in Mosul, those slaughtered in the Kuwait mosque last week or the people murdered on the beach in Tunisia? Incidentally, Brand says the one minute silence for the British people killed in Tunisia was “bullshit.” 

He says the threat from IS is only conceptual but “the threat of David Cameron is real.”  

He says British attitudes towards Muslim youth are to blame for all the young men and women leaving the UK to join IS.

“What frame of mind would I have to be in to leave my house in f***ing East London and say, ‘Right, I’m going to the desert to kill some people?” 

Happily, I can answer that question. The state of mind that persuades young Muslim men to become murderers for IS is psychopathic fantasy – just as the corresponding state of mind in Muslim girls who go off to be sex slaves is wishful thinking. Wait until these lasses get there and see how they’re treated by their gallant “husbands”!

This is the Russell brand who said, “I like threesomes with two women, not because I’m a cynical sexual predator. Oh no! But because I’m a romantic. I’m looking for ‘The One.’ And I’ll find her more quickly if I audition two at a time.”

Why stop there Russ? Become a Muslim and you can have four.

Oh dear, if he goes to Syria we shall lose the spiritual teacher who said, “Say I feel all sad and self-indulgent, then get stung by a wasp, my misery feels quite abstract and I long just to be in spiritual pain once more – damn you tiny assassin, clad in yellow and black, how I crave my former innocence where melancholy was my only trial.”

He’s a student of human psychology as well: “The most insightful thing I ever heard, was overheard. I was waiting for a rail replacement bus in Hackney Wick. These two old women weren’t even talking to me – not because I’d offended them, I hadn’t, I’d been angelic at that bus stop, except for the eavesdropping. Rail replacement buses take an eternity, because they think they’re doing you a favour by covering for the absent train, you’ve no recourse. Eventually the bus appeared, on the distant horizon, and one of the women, with the relief and disbelief that often accompanies the arrival of public transport said, ‘Oh look, the bus is coming.’ The other woman – a wise woman, seemingly aware that her words and attitude were potent and poetic enough to form the final sentence in a stranger’s book – paused, then said, ‘The bus was always coming’.”

Let him go – this Brand is well past his sell-by date.

But before he goes off to kill or be killed – or both – let me quote his one saying which will be a true prophecy once he signs up to IS:

“Life is not a theme park, but if it is, the theme is death.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
03 Jul

Achtung Juden!

Lovely weather we’re having! What better way to take advantage of it than to get yourself into Whitehall tomorrow for a spell of Jew-baiting? You will have the opportunity to rip up Israeli flags and burn pages of the Talmud. Do take the children.

The master of ceremonies at this fun day for all the family is a Nazi called Joshua Bonehill-Paine.

Nice Jewish name you’ve got there, Josh!

Pain-Bonehead Esq – I haven’t got that quite right –  and his Nazis want to demonstrate “a show of solidarity by English people who recognize that Israel is a corrupt state which is responsible for horrific war crimes.”

What war crimes are these? Do they mean taking defensive measures in southern Israel against the rockets that are fired into local villages every day? Do they further refer to bombing raids by the Israel Air Force on these rocket-launching sites in Gaza – where Hamas position these sites in schools and hospitals, thus cynically causing the injuries and death of their own civilian population?

Bonehill-Paine added that the protest will target Jewish Shomrim volunteers, whom he describes as “undemocratic and illegal.”

No, they are not illegal. And, when it comes to the practice of democracy, it’s not exactly the Nazis’ strong point is it?

Shomrim, the Hebrew term meaning guards, are neighbourhood-watch organizations established by Orthodox Jewish communities to provide some meagre defence against vicious antisemitic attacks which have greatly increased over the last twelve months .

The Nazis aim to protest what they call “the Jewification of London.”

Bonkers!

I lived in central London from 1998-2012 and I didn’t notice that the capital was being Jewified. Something else is going on though for, while according to the 2011 census there are but 171,960 Jews in London, there are 1,012, 823 Muslims – an increase of 40% since the previous census a mere ten years earlier.

Have the Nazis perhaps got things slightly out of proportion? Well, we know such people are not regarded for their powers of cerebration. But aren’t they tearing up the wrong flag and burning the wrong book?

Perhaps the Nazis ought to reflect that Jews make a substantial contribution to the wealth, culture and social life of London, and instead redirect their protest towards that community which has been revealed to practise corrupt politics,ballot-rigging, violence towards women and incitement to terrorism?

Just a suggestion, Josh.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
01 Jul

“Is that a suicide belt you’re wearing, Tariq, or are you just pleased to see me?”

If you can’t hear me very well this morning, it’s owing to the neighing coming from the bolting horses and all the stable doors being belatedly slammed shut. For behold, our intelligent, wise and on-the-ball government has just announced that we need new anti-radicalisation laws. This creative dispatch comes fourteen years after the attacks on New York and ten years after the London bombings.

Never mind, let’s look at what the new arrangements will involve.

The new rules will require public bodies to identify and report those “vulnerable” to extremist views. Strange use of the word “vulnerable” and it reminds me of that other odd usage, as in “those vulnerable to committing a crime.”

Deciding your vocation is to be one of Allah’s suicide bombers is not, I suggest, about vulnerability; it is produced by a psychotic and murderous disposition. The prime minister wonders aloud why all these young Muslims are taking themselves off to Syria to learn how to be murderers or sex-slaves.

Because they want to, Dave. Because they want to. The “cause” of radicalisation is a perverse exercise of the faculty of free will.

Councils will have to “consider whether publicly available computers should limit access to extremist material.”

What’s to consider?

“Schools will need to demonstrate they are protecting pupils from being led to terrorism by having robust safeguarding policies in place to identify children at risk, and intervening as appropriate.”

So this is our government’s secret weapon against terrorism: more bureaucracy, clip-boards and box—ticking. “Safeguarding” didn’t deter career paedophiles and it will do nothing to curtail the activities of those just itching to rampage with a Kalashnikov and kill as many Kuffars as possible in a shopping centre or, as it might be, on a beach 

You needn’t be afraid of a terrorist attack, for our government will keep you safe. We have stockpiled huge quantities of jargon and we are prepared to deploy this jargon at a moment’s notice to face the threats that confront us..

For example, “Universities will have to carry out a risk assessment to determine where and how students might be radicalised.”

A risk assessment – that’s the device which strikes terror into the heart of every jihadist

“Healthcare workers should be trained to recognise signs of people being drawn into extremism.” Are these the same health care workers who fail to notice when an aged hospital patient is dying of thirst?

“Prison bosses should carry out cell-sharing risk assessments for inmates.”

Of course, before you can kill your terrorist, you have to recognise him for what he is. I mean that tall chap with a beard and going into the kebab house might have no more sinister intent than breaking his Ramadan fast. How to decide if he wants to blow us all up? Education Secretary Nicky Morgan suggests we enquire as to whether he has “an extreme intolerance of homosexuality.”

I can imagine the line of enquiry: “Excuse me, Sir but may I examine your suicide belt? And, incidentally, are you an admirer of Doris Day and Judy Garland?”

Predictably, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, Christine Blower, said the Government’s Prevent programme was “causing significant nervousness and confusion among teachers.”

Well, that’s the first thing I’ve heard in its favour. Anything that scares the chalk out of members of the NUT can’t be all bad.

Of course, do any of these things and the enemy will soon see you off by shouting, “Islamophobia!”

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail