Left-wing opponents accuse the organisers of using the pork-heavy menus with a side of patriotic conviviality to ostracise Muslims and disguise a far-Right political project before the presidential elections.
Well, right-wing plot is a bit too far but:
Inside a packed market, a crowd of 1,800 belts out the Marseillaise, hunting horns sound and roars erupt as Asterix and Obelix rush past, banging a giant magic potion pot.
As local charcuterie is served and wine flows, classic French songs such as Michel Delpech’s 1974 Le Chasseur prompt guests to rise from their long wooden tables, sing, sway and dance.
Long lines of conga form but suddenly scatter when the DJ announces: “Le cochon, le cochon.” Pork is served.
The setting could scarcely be more French and for the guests, many clad in berets and stripy tops, that is precisely the point.
They have gathered in the central city of Bourges for the latest iteration of a phenomenon sweeping France: banquets géants, or giant banquets, mass feasts built around traditional food, wine, music and a celebration of all things français.
They are trying to ostracise those non-French in that cultural sense. They’re doing so very well.
“This is us, this is ours”, however exaggerated and over the top, is indeed meant to be exclusive of those who are not us, ours.
Having been right the lefties then get it wrong again. What the Hell is wrong with indigenes being indigenous?
‘What the Hell is wrong with indigenes being indigenous?’
They’re white???
And white indigenes must always be ‘inclusive’ because to be ‘exclusive’ is ‘racist’…
Je ne menge point de porc
Je ne menge point de porc.
Telle que je vois dire,
S’il a mengé cent estrons,
Il ne s’en fera que rire.
Il les tourne, il les vire,
Il leur rit et puis les mort.
Je ne menge point de porc.
Le porc s’en alloit jouant
Tout au long d’une rivière.
Il veit ung estron nouant,
Il luy print a faire chere,
Disant en ceste maniere:
“Estron nouant en riviere,
Rend toy ou tu es mort.”
Je ne menge point de porc.
Claude de Sermisy d. 1562
And not forgetting…
Just a little something you had at your fingertips?
I used to see these guys a lot in the 90s and I have a CD with this song on it.
https://youtu.be/DzNi2jBgKeU?is=CFv8NF42oTZszmF4
Doubt it. Otto was reminded of the verse and so looked it up. Nothing wrong with a scholarly allusion…
Faster to cut n paste from the Interweb than transcribe it off of the CD notes, too ( very small writing ).
Splendid. Are you an early music fan, Ottokring?
very erudite…
Depends on the indigenes, clearly
One of the aims of kosher and halal dietary laws is to prevent their adherents from sharing a meal with those not of the same persuasion, thus helping to prevent assimilation. Objective achieved!
Our sages also point out the various advantages of the kosher laws: the health benefits, the humane treatment of animals, their unifying effect on a dispersed people, and their role as shield against assimilation.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/113425/jewish/What-Is-Kosher.htm
Well, if a small number of x people ask to settle here, choose (often) to marry-in, make a social contribution, and do not attack us or our culture (or what’s left of it!), then that’s fine by me. I can easily cope with 300,000 jews, but not 7 million muslims…
Yes, they used to be more explicit. You must not eat with those not of the faith.
Well, good for them. When can WE start?
U’m searching for the article condemning the ANC for encouraging the slaughter and torture of white farmers by the blacks who had slaughtered all the bushmen to claim “the land is ours!”. My eyes are getting a bit tired…
I’ve long wondered whether the eating of pork might be the hill on which Europeans finally choose to die. Or, at least, dig our heels in.
Dogs, more likely. That said, they’ll have to pry the bacon butty from my cold, dead hands.
I’m thinking of buying one of these for my street facing lawn now the grass has grown back.
When should I expect a visit from the filth.
Back in the ’80s? a council in the North, Derby springs to mind, removed the statue of a pig from a park saying it was offensive to Muslims. The local Muslim community claimed they hadn’t complained and it turned out it was a politically correct council employee taking offence on their behalf.
As a lot of communities are now looking for excuses to take offence and plod is more politically correct, or woke in the modern parlance, I’m betting it won’t take long.
If you do price in an FSU membership if you haven’t got one.
The problem with the “Muslim community” is that it represents almost no-one. It’s generally focussed on the mosque.
Richard Dawkins once described himself as culturally Christian. He doesn’t believe in god, but he likes the aesthetics. Cathedrals, Christmas carols. And that’s like a lot of other people. They do traditions, without really believing in much. Like I saw a young woman in London wearing a Hijab, on her own, but she had flattering tight jeans on. Yes, you’re following the rule, you’re wearing the uniform of your group, but you’re missing the point.
That’s not to say there aren’t some hardcore nutters, and Muslims score higher than most. But a lot of Muslims never go to mosque.
The whole point of Islamic dress rules is to deflect attention from yourself. Wearing the Burqa or Niquab does exactly the opposite, DRAWS attention. These sinful women should be castigated for their heretical behavior!
It’s to stop people looking at women’s beauty. It goes back to the era of forced/arranged marriages. Where the women are already allocated to a man to marry by the family. If they’re lovely out and about, other men might try and shag them and they might be interested too.
If you’re showing off a fantastic arse, it rather defeats the point.
A lot of religious stuff fits with local economics. They’ll be some fairy story about turbans, lent, eating fish on Friday, but all this stuff made sense at one time. Wrapping cloth around your hair regulates heat, retains moisture, keeps hair clean. You have to eat less food after you eat your winter food and wait for easter. It got backward fitted into being about prophets of sky fairies saying so.
All that stuff about women makes sense in Afghanistan where women go from puberty straight to marriage. Where the whole society is about owning land, so you marry a cousin.
And maybe some Muslims want to do that here, but most don’t. So, girls will be pigheaded about it, tick the box of wearing a hijab. Even though they’ve got tight jeans and heels on. She’ll raise her children even less so. Maybe make her wear a hijab when granny comes over.
How long until Winnie The Pooh is cancelled?
The thing I learned recently about the Reconquista, the retaking of Spain, is that it became a thing to display your cured ham as a sign of loyalty. You clearly weren’t a Muslim.
The three ladies quoted in the article having a ciggie break are right:
The ‘Critics” are just a bunch of Perpetually Offended Sourpusses who hate fun….
Ye gods… it’s simply Oktoberfest á la Francaise, or as coined by sir PTerry “with Avec, lots of Avec”…
Or a Burgundian Party with a Theme, or…….
It’s, once again, Lefties Projecting, and ReeEEEee!!-ing about the fact that, in fact, the majority of people do *not* share their Vision of the World.
Has anyone checked whether the bugs are Halal? Would be terrible if that ended up the only acceptable foodstuff, but there’s no inclusive way to produce it.
Insects are definitely not Kosher (despite all the biblical stuff about locusts and honey (I seem to remember reading that the locusts are a plant not the insect 🙂 )). The position for Halal is ‘complicated’.
Not true. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_locust and for anyone who can’t be bothered to read all that, see https://holylocust.com/ which sells kosher locust products.
Fascinating.
Onna stick?
(I seem to remember reading that the locusts are a plant not the insect)
Indeed, the locust bean whose fleshy pulp is better known as tamarind.
Good for the French. If I was still living there, I’d have wanted to join in and would probably have been invited.
The whole purpose of islam is to eradicate any culture or religion that isn’t islam.
Unfortunately, in the west they are aided and abetted by many, many left wing men and women who do not understand the concept of ‘invasive species’ and are doing their utmost to hasten their own (and our) demise.
Ban islam, ban halal, close all mosques, imprison then deport anyone found guilty or complicit in the rape of young white girls, ban cousin marriage, make arranged marriages illegal and punishable with prison time for the males involved, then deportation. Could think or more but have to go…..
Typically British. Use the law! What’s wrong with you? Solve the problem yourselves. The NF showed you the way 50 years ago but you monstered them didn’t you?
“you monstered them”. Absolutely not mate…….
“many, many left wing men and women who do not understand the concept of ‘invasive species’ “
Oh, they do… They very much do… They just “enable” other invasive species in the mistaken belief they will do the Dirty Work for them, after which they will sweep in to Save The Day, while washing their hands like Pilates….
Except that the current bunch of soy-munchers wouldn’t be able to put a dent in a pack of butter, let alone “Save the World”….
“ many left wing men and women who do not understand the concept of ‘invasive species’ “
Oh the Left get really Blood and Soil when it comes to plants and animals. Its just humans they have an accidentally on purpose blind spot over.
Any part of piggy
Is quite alright with me.
Ham from Westphalia, ham from Parma
Ham as lean as the Dalai Lama
Ham from Virginia, ham from York,
Trotters, sausages, hot roast pork.
Crackling crisp for my teeth to grind on
Bacon with or without the rind on
Though humanitarian
I’m not a vegetarian.
I’m neither a crank nor prude nor prig
And though it may sound infra dig
Any part of the darling pig
Is perfectly fine by me.
Perhaps you can guess the author.
There’s a restaurant that’s a favourite of mine in Paris. Au Pied de Cochon near Le Halles. An entire menu of them. I’m so well known there they serve me three rather than two.
What’s it like to be an immigrant?
I had this sort of conversation with an Irish woman when I lived in Munich. She was concerned in those days that German attitudes to foreigners were hardening.
I told that I had no such problem, because I wasn’t foreign, I was British.
There is the thing that I was born in Central London & grew up there so I don’t really know what not being an immigrant is. I was surrounded by foreigners then & I’m surrounded by foreigners now. Or was it me who was the foreigner? I did used to feel a bit of foreigner in deepest England. There’s things that get talked about here, I really haven’t a clue. Like the conversation about lunch, tea & dinner. To me it’s meaningless. “Tea” as a meal? Served in certain hotel & department store restaurants where women gather, consisting tiny sandwiches, a selection of patisserie & a pot of the beverage drunk from small fine china cups in the afternoon.
I’m slightly interested to know, but I don’t care that much.
Does that help?
It’s fine: learn the language, blend in, marry a local mebbies, take citizenship and finally renounce your British one. It’s perfectly fine.
I like the usual piggy products – ham, bacon, pork. But. I learned to fly light aircraft many moons ago and a pair of us learners had to ‘go foreign’ with an instructor before we could do it ourselves. Our trip was to Le Touquet and we landed & went to lunch. Not knowing any better in those days I ordered andouillette…
Luckily I wasn’t sick on the flight back!
I like andouillette
Ok, I’ll bite.
Tom Lehrer?
Roald Dahl?
Kipling?
Noel Coward
Ah. Now you’ve told me, I re-read it (in my head in Coward’s voice), and I still cannot see it …
Interesting. Shia don’t eat mussels. Vive la Braderie Lilloise!
Do I miss moules et frites served in the marmite. A child’s portion is a kilo & you just buy into the concept of chips. Finish the pile & they resupply. Spanish just don’t understand mussels. A mere half dozen obliterated in vile tomato sauce poisoned with olive oil? Pah!
Hmmmm… Mussels….
Braised in wine and a decent ( pre-made ) vegetable stock, a real consommé if you’re going Fancy…. ( and have the time to make it….)
I’ll be doing here when the mussels get to the right price. Melt some butter & saute the garlic, in with the mussels, half a glass of dry white. Pour out the liquor when the mussels have all opened, mix in some cream & pour it back over the mussels. Stock would make it too wet. The sauce is the juice of the mussels with that salty tang. And of course, the first mussel shell half is the eating implement.
My favourite restaurant for moules is La Voile Blue at Bray Dunes, France’s most northerly town. For drinking, Leffe. For extra points, converse in Flamand.
Wow! Is that really true that say Ahmadiyya will eat mussel, but another sect such as Shia will not. Splitters!
Judging by the shell middens the hunter-gatherers on Islay survived the autumn on mussels and hazelnuts.
There are 73 sects in islam (according to mo), only one of which is the true islam and will achieve salvation. Which explains nicely why moslems are so happy to kill those in the ‘wrong’ sect and are therefore not ‘proper’ moslems…..
Choritos a la chalaca BiS. Food of the gods.
Not so OT. Didn’t the “lads’ do well in Dover at the weekend? Superbly organised & orchestrated. The Overton Window will have got a sharp shove to the right. Knuckle draggers Tim?
My reference to knuckle draggers was rather more a reference to how bein pensant thinking will refer to them. For that’s what the Overton Window is about – bien pensant thinking. Anything outside their terms of reference will be referred to as “far right” “knuckle dragging” etc and given how humans generally are that will scare off the majority.
Given that education and the media are almost exclusively occupied by socialists and other lefties, the framing of events in popular culture will always lean heavily left.
Like limpets, they will cling on for dear life, and until those on the right prise them loose, they will continue poisoning the minds of (the) Hoi Polloi.
The rise of X has at least given those not of the left, a voice, and a platform. However the stats that show that over the last 5 years, some 60,000 prosecutions have taken place for ‘communications offenses’.
If we are lucky enough to get a non-left Government next election, I don’t see either the Conservatives or Reform having the cojones to do the necessary with regards to Education or media, or anything else for that matter.
But perpetuation of the “knuckle dragger’ meme by those on the soft right, does little for their cause. These people are entitled to their opinions the same as anyone else. One doesn’t have to agree with them but they need to be shown respect. If you want to move the Window to the right, you’ve got to have somewhere to shift it to. And somewhere to the right of that.
I think one of the problems of the current right is its institutional dislike of ordinary people & their views. Yet they want their votes.
That’s freedom of speech – a classical liberal value.
Monsieur l’Abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerais ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire.
Of course, but where? There is a choice of destinations.
One argument against immigration is that the immigrants don’t share our liberal values. Islam has no free speech or freedom of belief. They treat minority religions, gays, and women appallingly. There’s honour killings and forced marriages and cousin marriage inbreeding and blasphemy laws and all sorts of stuff going on that offends against Western liberal values. Crime and violence and sexual assault go up, because they don’t have the taboos against it we do.
So you can make an argument that while we hold to freedom of belief about other matters, when it comes to *those liberal values themselves* they have to be compulsory, or Western freedom and prosperity won’t survive. They have to integrate, at least that much.
Taking that position gets you on board with everyone else who holds liberal values. They might not like your other opinions. But if they want to *keep* their socially liberal multicultural society then they had better insist that everyone they bring in believes in it too.
Another argument is about Traditional British Culture. Tea and scones, going to see the football on a Saturday, playing cricket in the park, darts down the pub of an evening, picnics in the park, walking the dog, mowing the lawn on a summer’s evening, bacon and eggs for breakfast, roast beef for Sunday lunch. It’s a culture as deserving of respect and preservation as any primitive indigenous practices. And the overwhelming influx of foreigners with different cultures is destroying it.
That gets you on board with everyone nostalgic for the past, who likes the comfortable routine of life. That’s a lot of people – older, more rural people especially, but not exclusively.
And then there is the argument that it’s all about skin colour, racial purity, Aryan master race stuff. The National Socialist German Worker’s Party (which was never ‘right wing’ – the clue is in the name) made that a mite unpopular about 80 years ago, and the whole thing ran counter to both Western liberal values and Traditional British Culture. We British fought a war to *stop* that sort of lefty thinking, and we’re proud of it!
So where do you want to try to push that window? You really want to pick option 3 and try to sell that “Hitler had a point, you know?” line to the British people?
We’re not saying these people are not entitled to their opinions. Classical liberal values hold that they can believe what they like and argue (non-violently) for it, and if we don’t like it we just argue against them, we don’t persecute them or ban them from organising politically. What we’re saying, however, is that a majority of the British people *detest* those views, and you’re going to find the Overton window much harder to move along a much bumpier road if you want to push it in *that* direction.
This isn’t about saying *we* detest those views (although personally I do, and I’m entitled to my opinion too). It’s about the *practical* political reality that those views are unpopular with the mainstream British, and going that way gains you a small number of extra voters at one end of the window and loses you a much *bigger* number of voters at the other. If you want to get elected and have a chance to do anything about it, it’s not the easiest road.
The problem with Classical Liberalism is it inevitably ends up where you are now.
I think you have a very strange idea what what Brits used to be. Brits used to be fairly authoritarian. They had a way of life they enjoyed & were proud of & wanted to preserve it. They had no reluctance to impose it on people who came to live in the UK. That seems to have started to change around the middle of the C20th when your classical liberalism began to dominate. Country’s been going down the shithole ever since.
You’re still mixing up liberalism and socialism. They’re not the same thing.
Classical liberalism was an 18th century thing. It’s based on ideas by Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Marquis de Condorcet, Thomas Paine, and David Ricardo among others. Modern proponents are people like Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell, and Ronald Coase.
None of them advocated or brought about the stuff you’re talking about. The only late 20th century British political leader who was in any way a follower was Maggie Thatcher.
It’s brought about by the concept of individual rights allocated by the state. Each right brings an obligation. Obligations are on individuals. You’ve got the point where so man y rights have allocated to so many individual the weight obligations has become impossible to bear.
This has nothing particularly to do with socialism. That’s your fixation, not mine. It’s liberalism that’s caused it. It’s unnatural & was always destined to fail.
It’s also not part of English culture. Which always operated on mutual obligations by consent.
Let’s go back to The Highway Act 1835. That defined footpaths as public rights of way. A total change of their nature. Originally footpaths were a result of agreed mutual obligations within a community. A landowner needed to travel across his neighbour’s land & his neighbour needed to cross his. So they agreed mutual access for their mutual benefit. This developed into networks of paths that served the needs of the people of the community. All by common consent. And what was consented to was the access. The landowner still owned the land & routes could be changed to serve the land’s needs as long as the access was preserved.
Come Highways Act, the State seized control of the land the paths passed over. Now the landowner doesn’t control of his own land. Maybe people walking through your garden past your living room window for 400 years wasn’t a problem when the people were your neighbours. But it’s hardly welcome when it’s a bunch of hikers exercising their rights, is it?
England was largely governed by Common Law which is mutual consent based on precedence. Liberalism .has brought you the proliferation of Statute Law mostly protecting people’s “rights”.
Which is socialism. Not liberalism.
That’s liberalism.
I think we mostly agree, except that you’ve got two of the entries in your dictionary mixed up.
It’s central to liberalism. The rights of the individual.
You no doubt believe you have a right to live. If you walk on my land, I can assure you, you don’t. I have a gun. The only thing that’s stops me killing you is not your right to live but my obligation to the community I belong to, not to do so. For some odd reason they don’t like me shooting liberals. Stupid, but I go along with it.
You’ll note that your opinion is nowhere consulted.
That’s the right to property. That’s liberalism.
The right to bear arms. The right to self defence.
If there are no rights then there are no obligations.
You have just turned “individual rights allocated by the state” into “individual obligations allocated by the community” which means exactly the same thing.
Liberals believe in ‘natural rights’ – you can call them ‘natural obligations’ if you like – that exist irrespective of what communities say. If you live in a socialist state where the community believes you are obligated to give to the poor, that’s still not a natural right. Communities should allocate obligations in line with *natural obligations*, which exist independently of the community’s opinions.
If the community allocates obligations not in accordance with natural obligations, then you might feel the need to still follow them out of fear of what the community will do to you if they catch you. But these are not the rights/obligations that liberals are talking about.
You keep on pointing to examples of natural rights – freedom of belief, freedom of speech, the right to property, the right to self defence, freedom of association, freedom of trade, the right to national and political self-determination of people, the right to a fair trial, and so on – as the things you are trying to defend against “liberalism”, apparently not realising that they *are* liberalism.
There are other things people call “rights” that are not natural rights. They mostly amount to the rights of bandits to take all your stuff. (Or as socialists put it to “redistribute” your wealth.) This is counter to liberalism.
But every time a campaign for more freedom wins a victory and people are persuaded it is a good thing, the bad people move in and take it over, and relabel all their bad stuff as freedom. Women getting the vote and jobs and property got turned into Radical Marxist Feminism Overthrowing the Patriarchy. Ending slavery and segregation-by-law got turned into race grifting, DEI, and calls for reparations.
When liberalism became popular, the bad people started calling themselves ‘liberals’, which is why actual liberals started referring to ‘classical liberalism’ – meaning ‘liberalism before it got taken over by socialists’. The Americans in particular call their socialists “liberals” and it’s very confusing. That’s not who we’re talking about.
‘The National Socialist German Worker’s Party (which was never ‘right wing’ – the clue is in the name)’
Thanks NiV. I so rarely see this pointed out.
Agreed BiS. No arrests, no property damage, no people ended up in hospital. The lads acted like pussycats when escorted to the train station to leave.
So this fits all the criteria of a ‘peaceful protest’. What? Some people felt intimidated and were delayed – claim on your feelings insurance girlfriend.
From what I’ve been told from people who were there, there was a lot of public support. So now there’s people looking at the far right with different eyes.Us not them.
All the politicians not on the right have come out calling thuggery and (the dreaded) disorder. They may have realised there’s no more road to kick the can down but they can’t change now. All the nonsense since the 50s has been to avoid the dreaded white backlash. Originally a concept based on the reaction of southern US whites to civil rights, when it looked likely to really kick off. But it didn’t, or at least not too badly. The establishment didn’t want that here so they avoided it by lying about what they were doing. They are still lying but a lot of people have noticed now. Interesting times.
(There WAS thuggery. A bunch of organised men in para-military uniforms bringing riot shields and pepper spray.)
Next step is police or antifa provoke violence and people get sent to jail for nothing much. Wait and see.
I thought a “peaceful protest” was one where everything that wasn’t nailed down got stolen and the rest got burnt. With a side of murder.
That’s “mostly peaceful”, Matt.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-protests-parodies