Yeah, it’s Imran.

Here’s another plug for J&M’s upcoming birthday Patreon drive. If you enjoy the comic and want to help keep it going, this is the best way to do it:

Become a Patron!

Discussion (39)¬

  1. psini says:

    “In the name of Freedom of Expression these westerners don’t realise how their blasphemous activities hurt the sentiments of Muslims all over the world,”.

    Well, in the name of religious freedom these Muslims don’t realize how their infamous activities hurt the sentiments of civilized people all over the world.


  2. Anonymous says:

    Well said psini. But as for Khan, I’ve mixed feelings. Yes I’d rather we lived in a world where the PM of a major power didn’t have to spout such ridiculous, childish rubbish. On the other hand, Pakistan’s Islamo-nutters were all set to go on a rampage and Khan’s statement was, I hope, solely aimed at restraining these fruitloops. I appreciate the correct response is to lock them all up, or dump them on a remote island somewhere, but that isn’t an option for Khan. Yes, I’m aware of the dilemma… by pandering to them in even this relatively innocuous way, you encourage them. Either way, people are probably going to die as a result. Judgement call.

  3. raymondm says:

    I see bans on cheese and bans on some Japanese cartoon, but I can’t find a story about Khan calling for an international ban on drawings of Mohammed.

    He’s beholden in part to religious extremists for his victory, so I’m sure he’s got to let them know (think) they’re getting something out of it.

    It’s a bit like Trump going to a prayer breakfast.

  4. The strongest argument I’ve ever read against democracy was an opinion poll taken in Pakistan, or maybe it was Afghanistan. When a huge proportion of the population is in favour of public stoning, to death, for adultery, you have to think democracy is maybe a bad idea.
    I don’t envy anybody trying to govern such a population.

  5. laxeyman says:

    Interesting that Khan draws a parallel with some European legislation on holocaust denial. I don’t believe in any restriction in freedom of expression (even that form of complete batshittery) because its really hard to draw objective lines, once you start.

    Yes, i know we can draw a distinction between denial of historical facts and criticism of ideas/religions/philosophies but its also quite easy to find examples of where such distinctions are easy to fudge.

    Hitchens described himself as a “first amendment absolutist”. I think that’s where I am on this. Not least because of the “me too” argument that Khan is trying to use.


  6. Alastair says:

    @Darwin Harmless
    As the very religious Mahatma Gandhi said “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.”

  7. jb says:

    Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

    Benjamin Franklin

  8. jb says:

    Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s let them all come here! Because if there’s anything we know for sure it’s that Western cultural prestige is so overwhelming that anyone exposed to it is guaranteed to abandon their old ways and become good progressive liberals! Right?

  9. jb says:

    Or maybe we’ve got to let them come here because morality!

    Or maybe we’re just stupid…

  10. Forget bread and roses, instead it’s bread and blasphemy laws…except for the bread part.

  11. 1HappyHeathen says:

    it is time we have an international draw or display an image of mohammutt day or week or month, no?

  12. Efogoto says:

    @raymondm: Click the *Imran* link published by Author in the OP.

  13. Banning cartoons of Mohammed’s body double??
    Are they trying to put Mo out of work?

  14. LD50 says:

    Interesting that he should bring up holocaust denial laws in support.

    How about

    a) these countries (Austria, Germany, Hungary and a Romania, according to Wikipedia) strike those laws?


    b) all Muslim countries introduce them – as Imran seems to be advocating.

    Of course, then I demand that denial of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s existence be outlawed, and, indeed, that the controversy concerning his existence be taught in ALL schools around the world.

    [Not that I’m equating the holocaust with the FSM]

    I actually prefer option a).

  15. LD50 says:

    So, here in one thread we have:
    Jews, Muslims, Nazis, Palestinians, Israel, immigration, FGM, terrorism, democracy and freedom of expression.

    And no calls (yet) for anyone to be banned, locked up or killed.

  16. LD50 says:

    Huh. If you actually reads the Wikipedia article, you’ll see it says 16 European countries have made holocaust denial illegal.

  17. Laripu says:

    Holocaust denial is a propaganda weapon of people and groups that want a return to Fascism. The truth of it is irrelevant to them, as it is only a means of motivating an ignorant public, to gain power.

    Fascism itself is a system that empowers the stupid over the smart, because under it, facts don’t matter, only adherence. When facts matter, smart people who can uncover and understand them have power.

    Given normal distributions and the explosive advance of knowledge, there are many more ignorant and stupid people than informed and intelligent people. Fact free politics uses the tools of democracy against democracy.

    This is why the current US administration is so frightening. It is a victory (temporary, I hope) of the factless stupid over the responsible and intelligent.

  18. Dr John the Wipper says:

    This is why the current US administration is so frightening
    Eh… how about the EU? THAT government IS NOT even elected, and utterly factfree SJW.

  19. raymondm says:

    @efogoto Thanks.

  20. Deimos says:

    This weeks cartoon and comments are a beautiful thing, gentle, polite and utterly Godless. Gotta love j&m.

  21. HelenaHandbasket says:

    Raymondrn. Here is the news item you were looking for (I think)
    Dr John: Its highly misleading to say that the EU commission (let alone the parliament) is either a government or is unelected. MEPS are elected by direct universal suffrage, and they elect the commisioners. You might query how representative this is (hell, I certainly would–as I would with FPTP systems, and unelected second house systems, of which the UK has both) but it’s disingenuous to claim it’s “unlected” as if the EU had just invaded (itself?) and set up a puppet state.

  22. M27Holts says:

    Somebody should ask President Khan if he really believes that the Koran is the last and final word of God. If he says yes then whatever he says on any other subject can be dismissed as he clearly is not intelligent enough to govern a banana republic never mind a nuclear armed theocracy…

  23. Laripu says:

    Dr. John, SJW are, at least, well intended. The fact-free fool who has assumed office in Washington acts in his own interest. Which is worse in the long run? I think it would be better if that question was never fully settled.

    Is it possible to have an elected EU government? If by population, small countries would be under-represented. If equal representation per country, then countries with big populations would be under-represented. In either case, there would be unfairness.

    You could go with a bicameral system, a lower house that’s elected by population and an upper house by country… but the similarities to the US system would make everyone want to avoid that.

    Or you could go back to the old system, where you fight horrible wars every few years. Hmmm… Maybe Europe has never abandoned that.

  24. jb says:

    Or you could go back to the old system, where you fight horrible wars every few years.

    This I believe is the main fallacy: the idea that an anti-democratic universalist elite is required to prevent Europe from reverting to what is implied to be its natural state of constant warfare.

    I think this is utterly wrong. I think both Europe and the world have changed drastically, and that even if nationalists took power in every European country and dismantled the EU entirely there would be no chance of war between European states. The globalists justify themselves by talking about the supposed lessons of the early 20th century — in particular the freakish disaster of WWII — while ignoring (or actively abetting) the main threat to Europe today, which is that it will be overwhelmed by a wave of foreign migration. If the common folk object they are shamed as crypto-fascists yearning for the return of the blackshirts. Why, such folk deserve to be suppressed!

  25. pink squirrel says:

    Pakistan? – sounds more like the pending fate of USA

  26. Son of Glenner says:

    Well said, Pink Squirrel.

  27. HelenaHandbasket says:

    jb. The idea that nationalism is the only bulwark against Islamification is a tempting but dangerous one. I would grant you that elements of the left appear to have made it the only available option: By shouting “racist” at anyone who raises even the most timid objection to FGM, or gang-rape. But other solutions are available than telling the left “Ok then, I’m a racist, if that’s what it takes”
    The world might have changed, but human nature hasn’t.
    We did what you suggested–dismantled what was then called the League of Nations and gave Europe entirely over to nationalists. It didn’t end well.
    Nations are comparatively recent in human history and they obviously piggy-back on some much more ancient allegiance mechanisms like tribe or family (“land of my fathers” “mother russia” etc).
    Religions and armies manage to parasitize these mechanisms pretty self-consciously too without the need for genetic relatedness (“band of brothers”, “sisterhood” etc).
    Maybe Europe could work similar mechanisms? There seems to be a weird lack of self-confidence/guilt combined with a strong wish fulfilment attitude that the whole European thing works (without doing much to make it work) in the zeitgiest.
    Plus, it hasnt exactly been hard to find rapacious types who exploited things like the crash at the expense of the rest of us (and are poised to exploit the next one in the same way) and blame it all on immigrants.
    Trouble is–when it comes to the UK there is no acceptable wall-building solution. There are 3 million muslims in the UK and there has to be an acceptable modus vivendi in between sharia and concentration camps or we are all FBARed.

  28. jb says:

    “We did what you suggested–dismantled what was then called the League of Nations and gave Europe entirely over to nationalists. It didn’t end well.”

    HelenaHandbasket — Thank you for providing a perfect example of the fallacy I was talking about! It involves treating history as though we could learn lessons from it the same way we do in physics, i.e., “if you do this, then inevitably this happens.” But history is nothing like physics — it is radically contingent and non-repeatable. Even back then WWII wasn’t inevitable; if the Allies had been wiser with the Treaty of Versailles, or if Hitler had been killed in WWI (which very nearly happened), things would almost certainly have worked out VERY differently. And yet people today speak reverently of the “lessons” we learned from the wars, and somehow the accidents of 100 years ago are transmogrified into eternal truths. The Europeans of today — the elites especially — have made a cult of these dubious truths, and as a result they are morally paralyzed, and unable to act in their own best interests.

    For example, the main problem for the UK is not the 3 million Muslims who are already there (bad as that is), but the ones who haven’t come yet. I see nothing unacceptable about a “wall-building” solution that keeps those out. Yet the people in charge are unwilling to act effectively, because they are paralyzed by the past. In fact none of them even have the courage to say “it was a mistake to let them come.” Instead, when census figures showed that native English had become a minority in the City of London, they took this as an opportunity to celebrate diversity!!! The book I linked to talks about how out of control immigration has become, and how, against the will of the common European people, it continues to snowball. If nothing changes it is entirely possible that within the lifetimes of people already born the English will find themselves a dwindling minority in their own country. No doubt that will be a cause for even greater celebration!

  29. two cents' worth says:

    jb, if Muslim refugees are to be kept out of the UK, where are they to go?

    The refugee problem in general will probably get worse before it gets better. The world has been and is now experiencing a surge in migration due to wars, violence, and poverty. Yet the number of refugees and other migrants is likely to increase greatly as the effects of climate change become more widespread and more devastating. Countries that block refugees put more pressure on countries that accept them. If those of us who live in relatively safe and prosperous places take the attitude of Not In My BackYard, the death toll could be appalling. How can we deal with the refugee/migrant problem in a way that is ethical and humane, both for the immigrants and for the people in the countries that accept them? This population shift is inevitable. What should we do to mitigate it and to prepare for it?

  30. SmallVoice says:

    Laripu, yes, it is possible to have a directly elected EU parliament. India allegedly manages this feat with a larger, more diverse population base. All that would be needed would be to accept Yurp as a country. A single country, with one flag, one language, one currency and one parliament.
    Local languages and customs could be preserved, even cherished but the work of Yurp would be done in the one official tongue.
    Of course, this would of necessity include Li’rr’l England which would mean shooting Brexit in the head but that might be no bad thing.
    And we would, of course, need a monarch as a last resort against the forces of democratic tyranny but fortunately we already have a quite nice one available.

    We could even include a slightly non-violent method of adding little countries to the behemoth that would be Yurp should any wish to enjoy the benefits of membership.

    We could even humour or placate the Prussians by unofficially giving it the nickname of “Der Grosse Grosse Deutsche Reich” or something. Subtitling the place as “Imperium Romanis Novis” would keep the Italians busy arguing over the declensions and out of everyone else’s hair while making English the official language would miff the French thus occupying their attention fully until the third generation just accepted the situation.

    Voting is done for Town Councils with populations of thousands. Voting is done for India with a population in the thousand million range. There is no reason for assuming that voting for Yurp, somewhere between those two, or even for the Global Terran Parliament could not be managed.

    Just as a suggestion: how about a tri-cameral system where one house makes laws, one house repeals poorly made or outdated laws and one is full of old farts from the B-Ark whose only purpose is to keep themselves occupied so we can get on with Life?

  31. SmallVoice says:

    TCW, the obvious answers to all of your concerns is: stop the bloody

    Were the horrible areas as nice as the nicer areas there would be no need for mass immigration.

    Wasn’t there once a sort of international thingy that was supposed to do things like stop conflicts and ensure peace? “Untied Notions” or something? I seem to remember reading about something like this in History classes.

  32. Son of Glenner says:

    Those who worry about national culture and identity being diluted/obliterated by immigration should bear in mind that this sceptred isle has had many waves of immigrants, their descendants now part of the general population, and indeed simultaneously descendants of different immigrants. These waves of immigration have been happening well before the Roman occupation and have continued throughout historic times. We are already a nation of mongrels.

  33. Laripu says:

    SmallVoice, thanks for the laughs. “Yurp” evokes a too-filling feast of Gorgozola, Roquefort, Cabozola and Stilton, followed by Fuller’s London Pride, Bitburger, Bordeaux, and Chianti, followed by Yurp.

    jb, I’m all for globalism. But that’s irrelevant, because I have no control and the real globalists want it. They are, of course, multinational corporations. At some point, they will start to really understand their combined power and become impatient. Then, little dictators will start to mysteriously die, and world leaders will surreptitiously do the bidding of the multinationals. The current turn to a stupid and exaggerated populism is a last gasp. But since these things take time to work themselves out that last gasp may last decades longer than my lifetime.

  34. jb says:

    Those who worry about national culture and identity being diluted/obliterated by immigration should bear in mind that this sceptred isle has had many waves of immigrants…

    There has been essentially zero immigration into the British Isles since the Norman Conquest, and even that amounted to perhaps 5 percent of the population. Everything from then up until the 1950s (e.g., the Huguenots) was essentially a rounding error. Invasions prior to the Norman Conquest (e.g., the Romans) were a little more significant, but were nowhere near the magnitude of what we are seeing today. The current wave of immigration is radically different from anything that preceded it, and if it continues to accelerate it will result in a population replacement unlike anything seen since modern humans replaced the Neanderthals.

    It’s hard to see how this argument even makes sense though. Why are we talking about population movements thousands of years ago? How does that relate to the question of what immigration policy would be in the best interests of the British people today? It doesn’t. The book I have been linking to spends a fair amount of time dismantling the weak hand-waving arguments that immigration apologists use — opportunistically switching back and forth from one to another as required — to distract attention from what is happening. “It’s Nothing New” is one of them.

    Another is “Migration is Unstoppable.” This is patently false. Japan, with one of the largest economies in the world, has very little immigration, and likes it that way. It’s actually quite easy to control immigration, provided the government has to will to actually do it.

    Another is “We Need New Blood Because We Are Getting Old.” This doesn’t seem to have caused much trouble in Japan yet, and if if ever did then then that would be the time to take the risk of bringing in foreigners (young ones, not their parents!). But there is also a nasty undercurrent to this argument. A couple of decades ago the Left (the Greens especially) were arguing that Europeans needed to have fewer children, for the sake of the environment. They were perfectly willing to tell white Europeans that they had a moral duty to stop breeding. But once brown immigrants started flooding in they dropped that line of argument like a hot potato. Makes you wonder…

    Most immigrants are not refugees, they are economic migrants. Many of those who do claim to be refugees are frauds — they are healthy young men with the money to pay the smugglers. They all have cellphones and contacts who are in Europe already. As for genuine refugees, do you really think you can save the world by letting everyone come to Europe? This might work if Europe were much larger than the rest of the world, but unfortunately the reverse is true. Refugees belong in nearby countries where they share the language and religion. If you really want to help (and help more than the tiny fraction of the population that can afford to emigrate) you need to go and help them there.

    I could go on and on, but you get the idea. The entire immigration debate has been amazingly dishonest and anti-democratic, consisting mostly of after-the-fact rationalizations for policies that were never thought through, that the populations of the receiving countries never supported, and that have consistently produced results other than what their authors promised. I’m an American, but if I were a European I would vote for any one of the right-wing parties that have been focusing on the issue. They aren’t perfect, but none of them are the Nazis reincarnated. Good luck to them!

  35. SmallVoice says:

    jb, Japan has a culture of looking after the elderly and infirm whereas much of Yurp just throws them to the wolves. Japan also embraces robots to help whereas in UK any tech more sophisticated than a spoon is treated with suspicion, as being subversive and as a possible gateway to grooming.

    Japan has massive flaws, earthquakes, big waves and whirly winds among them but its people also have some cool cultural biases.

    What we need is a global culture that sucks the best bits out of all of the others, discards the rubbish bits and makes everyone happy.

    Wait … is that … multi-culturalism?

  36. SmallVoice says:

    Laripu, “Yurp” is the sound many UK politicians make when referring to the Place We Don’t Want To Be In. I like the name. I think it should become the official, trans-language name for the Grosse European Federation.

    That it resembles the Yankee affirmative response is coincidental and irrelevant but could be psychologically useful when bargaining with the colonials. It might make them more agreeable if they hear their word for “yes” often enough during discussions.

    Something, something, “pavlovian” …

  37. Jim Baerg says:

    Re: refugees as economic migrants.
    To a large extent the war in Syria is due to misery caused by drought pushing farmers off land. If Arab states could admit that Israel has done something worth imitating they could use this technology & greatly reduce the problem.

  38. Laripu says:

    SmallVoice, I always found the reference to the United States (and other former British colonies) as colonials as a bit … sour grapes, perhaps, or something like it.

    As though, “We lost the empire when a rag-tag rebel army beat us, and had to watch as they became ascendant, but as long as we can call them colonials we can maintain an unearned sense of smug superiority. Another pint please.”

    Don’t worry, you’re not unique in this. I’m seeing the same kind of attitude here, as I watch the setting of the sun on American dominance, and the ascendance of China. Human nature can’t accept that kind of change, and yearns to ‘MAGA’.

    When it comes down to it, we’re all just a bunch of dummies.

  39. SmallVoice says:

    Laripu, the term “colonials” was used as a tease in keeping with the ironic tone of the posting not as any indicator of my thinking, feelings, education, experience or opinions.

    It was a joke.

    Could it be that dry wit is too subtle for colonials?


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.