Jasper Carrott – prophet.


Jasper was a Birmingham-based stand-up comic (well he usually sat down) who was popular some years ago. I remember one of his jokes that I have not found on YouTube, and it was about homosexuality. Something along the lines of ‘It used to be illegal, then it was legal, now it’s celebrated. I’m getting out before they make it compulsory.’ That would have been somewhere around 1980 or maybe earlier.

And so, in the fullness of time, it came to pass.

The Daily Lunacy claims that the Government’s ‘equality’ agenda is not working because we aren’t all dressing up as Julian Clary and singing ‘I’m a little teapot’. Actually I doubt there is anyone in the world who dresses like Julian Clary other than… Julian Clary. His designer doesn’t sell many copies. Anyway.

Only one in 100 people say they are exclusively homosexual, an official survey found yesterday.

Is that not enough? Does ‘equality’ demand a fifty-fifty split? What about pansexuals, don’t they get a say, or has the small mammal lobby been putting pressure on the government? Maybe they are holding Cameron’s cat hostage.

The count by the Office for National Statistics shows that despite the promotion of same-sex marriage and full gay equality by David Cameron and the Coalition, there has been no increase in the past year in numbers of people who say they are gay.

In the past year? This year we have the same population as last year, the only difference is we’re all a year older. Why would anyone expect an increase in any self-defined group? Last year I was a pist and skint smoker. This year, I am one year older. Nothing else has changed. Did anyone wake up one morning and think “Oh dear me, those curtains simply do not go with the colour of my skirting boards” and immediately cast aside their lumberjack outfits to don a leather cap and sport a Freddie Mercury moustache? Well there might have been one or two but it’s not realy likely to make a difference to country-wide statistics.

Why does ‘equality’ demand an increase in numbers? Are we to expect to be issued with Government-mandated sexual preferences in order to make the numbers right?

There are lots of Christians in this country and quite a few Muslims but not many Jains. So will we be allocated a religion too? Equality demands the numbers match. Some of us will be declared fat and some thin, some will be allocated political beliefs so that all parties get a fair and equal share of the vote…

Why can’t we all just be ‘people’? That would be so much simpler and would require no government involvement whatsoever. It would require no equality legislation because everyone would be defined as a ‘person’ and gender, skin colour, religion, sexuality, size, none of those things would matter at all. None would be defended in law because there would be no need. The law would define crimes against ‘the person’ and deal with them accordingly.

If someone beat me to a pulp because I come from Wales I would not care why they did it. I would only care that they did it. Beating someone to a pulp is illegal, the reasons are irrelevant, the crime is in the beating and there should be no opportunity for excuse. Because these differences are used as excuses. ‘His religion made him do it. He was influenced by some neo- Nazi group or other’ and so on. It does not matter. The trial should be concerned only with ‘did he do it, yes or no?’ and the only mitigating circumstances would involve direct provocation.

So, if someone beat me to a pulp because I was constantly provoking them, then that should count in the defendant’s favour. If they did it because their friends egged them on, or their holy book said that Welsh people must die, or because they were drunk or for any reason that did not involve me provoking them, then the law should not make any allowance at all. The law should treat everyone as equal.

‘Equality’ as applied to human relations is not a mathematical formula. If there was only one gay in the country he/she would be ‘equal’ if we were all treated the same.

Instead we are sorted and categorised and classified like some farmer’s stocktake and there are those who think this is a good idea because, at the moment, they are the favoured stock.

The tide has started turning for last year’s favoured stocks – Muslims and travellers are not getting the easy ride they have become accustomed to any more. It will get worse.

If you are one of this year’s favoured cattle, beware. They are just fattening you up for the slaughterhouse.

Don’t believe it? As a smoker I have watched society from the outside for a long time now. I have no desire to rejoin what I see. It’s not nice in there. You think it’s great that the government is on your side, fine, you carry on believing that.

Note though, that they are now pushing a gay agenda just like the previous favoured groups and look what happened to them. The disabled? People who cannot move or speak are now being classed as fit for work while only a few years ago, someone with a bad back could languish on benefits with a free car thrown in. When that tide turns, it turns all the way.

Watch the tide.


41 thoughts on “Jasper Carrott – prophet.

  1. Couldn’t agree more. This need to categorize us all is creepy to say the least. As an individual I must be an equality prodnose’s nightmare. I am gay BUT I am conservative with a small ‘c’, (I don’t vote – I gave up voting after the smoking ban). My partner and I took out a civil partnership BUT we don’t believe in gay ‘marriage’ as we think the idea of two people of the same sex being ‘married’ in a church massively inappropriate (we are both church-going Christians too!). We are not faux heterosexuals, we are different BUT equal. As for gay adoption I would have thought the notion would have been seen for the blatant social engineering process that it is rather than something to celebrate. The state’s notion of equality is actually the opposite – it’s an attempt to make us all the same by ironing out difference. Government HATES the idea of people living under the radar out of the reach of manipulation and brainwashing. As many people as possible must be plugged into the soulless panoply of crap which is the approved state lifestyle so we can produce and consume at our optimum level for as long as possible.

    In private interactions I have no problem stating my sexuality BUT when it comes to bureaucrats in local or national government I am deeply reluctant to do so. Whenever I am invited to complete a form which asks for this information I leave it blank or state (when there’s a choice) that I’d rather not say. Perhaps government suspects that increasing numbers of people are doing this (and they are) which may account for their air of hurt querulousness.

    I object to being the darling of any political group and having my existence used for whatever nasty agenda they might have. I am not a victim that needs the state to protect me. I am not any better than anyone else because I am perceived to be a member of a ‘minority’.

    As to trusting the state, I remember reading that under the Weimar Republic gay people felt encouraged to ‘come out’ and that subsequently their personal details remained freely available to government scrutiny after 1933.


    • Thank you for your post, Richard.

      Though I was very glad when Civil Partnerships were introduced, I have to admit that I’m still stinging a little over having my marriage of 37 years suddenly “redefined” for me without even being asked my opinion on the matter.

      I feel a little better now.


    • I can only echo what Richard has said. Indeed, I’m likewise gay, in a civil partnership, and conservative leaning but differ in that neither of us are practising Christians (partner is Chinese anyway).

      I’m inclined to believe that marriage is for those parties that desire it and the institutions that enable it to come to an accommodation. The State should have no sway in whether it is permitted or not. As for adoption, I’m more neutral. At the end of the day the child’s interests are paramount. If a gay couple are potentially suitable parents (and many are) then why not let them compete with conventional couples? Hopefully the child will then be placed with the parents offering the best environment and prospects.

      Like Richard, I’m completely open in private and additionally I’ve found no problem with being so publicly too… Indeed, I post here and elsewhere under my real name and a little checking on the internet would reveal quite a lot about me. I’m actually grateful that I live in an age where the information in this very post isn’t going to end a career or embarrass loved ones. But when it comes to filling in all those silly bits of official paper I’m almost certain to answer anything but the truth when it comes to my sexuality. If we’re truly going to have equality then why the need for these sorts of questions? It’s not like gays drive on the wrong side of the road and the Government needs to know which way to face the road signs.

      I don’t ask any special favours of the State other than not allowing (or even promoting) the homophobic conditions which have become embedded in places like Russia. The rest, I can deal with alone or in concert with others.


        • There are lots of things that are a bar on entry to heaven apparently and anyway, if you believe what the church tells you, in the end it’s God’s decision not ours. If the Calvinists are right it’s predetermined and nothing you do will make any difference if God has decided you aren’t amongst the elect. Given all that and the vanishingly small chance of salvation it would seem to suggest, it doesn’t seem worth bothering to deny yourself any physical relationship if you are Gay, indeed It doesn’t seem worth bothering with following any tenet of Christianity if fear of damnation is your main concern


          • There are indeed lots of things and sexual immorality is undeniably one (or several) cases which must be repented of.

            And nobody is born gay. Tatchell even says it’s a choice. I’m an alcoholic – I probably have the ‘alcoholic gene’. Should I give up my 16 year abstinence or go back and try and hammer my organs to death? As I was ‘born that way?’

            Only eugenicists and those in denial reduce mankind to nothing more than our genome.


            • “And nobody is born gay. Tatchell even says it’s a choice. I’m an alcoholic – I probably have the ‘alcoholic gene’. Should I give up my 16 year abstinence or go back and try and hammer my organs to death? As I was ‘born that way?’ ”

              So you’re conflating your own perceived failings with the preferences of others and assuming that they must necessarily be harmful, both because yours is and because a set of ancient tribal customs have been preserved in the holy book of a later religion which itself has altered considerably since its foundation. I don’t find that a convincing argument.


              • You misunderstand then. We are not ruled by our genetics. Either we have mastery over them or we give into any carnal, or otherwise, desires we are predisposed towards.

                Secondly, homosexuality has been a taboo in just about every culture always and SSM never legalised by any government or monarch prior to the past few years of subversion-gone-mad.

                Watch Yuri Bezmenov (below) and try and work it out.


                • I’m not sure what point you are making about genetics. You said that homosexuality was a choice but then seem to imply that Gays are yielding to a genetic impulse. As for not giving in to carnality the human race would have long gone extinct if we didn’t.

                  I don’t see what the religious, as distinct from the societal, objection to carnality or the Gay version of it, is exactly. Haven’t these desires been implanted by divine wisdom or are they somehow made impure by being banned by the state or condemned by social convention ? I thought most people here would find that argument abhorrent, isn’t it what’s happened to smokers and is no doubt going to happen to drinkers and lovers of fatty foods ?

                  Anyway your claim that homosexuality has always been taboo in “just about every culture” is both a wild generalisation and a drastic over simplification of a complex phenomena.


        • Then again, the Old Testament is clear that a man missing his bag o’ lumps is not welcome either, and that is a bit unfair on testicular cancer survivors. That one always confused me since spirits have no need of any bag o’ lumps since they are immortal and therefore need not reproduce.

          If there is a God who is fair and just, I would hope He would take more account of actions toward others than actions towards oneself. We can only wait and see, I suppose.


    • All this categorising was done by the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century, by Cromwell’s Puritans, by Hitler’s loonies, by Stalin’s loonies, and it always had the same result. When it turns nasty, they know where you live.

      What I cannot understand is why Leftie ‘intellectuals’ are too stupid to recall what every single revolution did first – kill all the intellectuals. And still they support it all!


  2. Sadly this sorting of people (and their rights) is actually ingrained in the system. I work at a university that constantly bleats on about tolerance and “respecting life choices” yet it celebrates the fact that the whole campus (yes, including ALL outside areas) will be judenfrei, sorry, I mean smokefree, in a few years. A few years back I decided to go to an Equal Opps meeting about “Tolerance and Students” as I wanted to moan about the treatment of over 30% of staff and students (the smokers), many of whom LIVE on campus, remember! The place is legally their home!

    Turns out that there is no such thing as rights or tolerance – there are certain “protected groups” (disabled, ethnic minorities, women etc) but if you do not belong to one of those groups there was no discussion to be had – literally, as every session was based around one of the groups with no possibility of veering awau from them.

    Discussing “tolerance” and “rights” as abstract issues that apply to everyone just isn’t possible, apparently.


    • What is their view on Drug/alcohol addiction? (If it is anything like Edinburgh uni, you get all sorts of “special privalidges.”)

      Now, according to them, smoking is an addiction…. what when we demand the same rights?

      Our “own space” for example?


  3. Also interesting that the groups themselves clearly have their own “progressive agendas”. Here in this 2009 article, we see how gay bashing had increased by 40% over the previous year (2007/08). Now to me, it seems obvious that making people stand outside known gay venues, usually in city centres late at night (because of the smoking ban), would not be a good idea. Better surely for people to be inside, behind closed doors, as they had been in 2007 when gay bashing was so much less than 2009? Surely the gay rights brigade would be arguing that the smoking ban was increasing violence on gays?

    But nope, not a word on it. Smokers are truly the untouchables. Better for gays to be beaten to a pulp, apparently, than rise to the aid of gay smokers.



  4. That would be so much simpler and would require no government involvement whatsoever.

    That sentence is the reason why it will not even be considered. The purpose of modern government is to ensure that “the people” are properly sorted and controlled in as opaque a manner as possible, so the concepts that you propose are totally alien to all politicians.


  5. There are people out there that identify as all kinds of things. Problem is that because it’s the Internet, it seems that there’s far more of them than they actually are. So it is with many sexual minorities.

    It’s not the Government’s business. Stay out of it. I am many things, but it’s not really anyone else’s business. Now piss off and leave me with my pint of stout.


  6. Mr. A: will be judenfrei, sorry, I mean smokefree,

    Don’t joke about this. Many universities are actively working on driving out Jewish students as they become increasingly under the influence of Islamist sources.


  7. Pingback: Rising Intolerance | Frank Davis

    • This is depressing. The political system I had in Panoptica was based on the ‘everyone’s a winner’ ideology of today. Vote for who you like, all candidates join the Coalition anyway. Naturally, all candidates are chosen by the Coalition in the first place. I thought that was going to be at least a decade away yet.

      Maybe the EU are hacking into my story-ideas file and thinking it’s their policy file?


    • That should be shown to every schoolchild at the end of their education. It tells them why they were told the crap they had to learn.

      It also tells all those smoke-banners and booze-banners and everything-banners exactly what awaits them the moment they succeed. As for replacing religions with false ones – *cough* climatology.

      By the way, his part near the beginning about dodging the blow and accelerating the enemy into the wall? That’s what I’ve been doing with the antismokers. Ramp up the absurdity, push them faster and faster into outright lunacy, suggest madder and madder ideas (they accept them all) until they hit that wall at light speed. I hope to still be around to see the splat.

      They haven’t ‘outed’ me on their forums yet and I’ll never post any clues here.


  8. Pingback: Real Street » Land of Intolerance?

  9. Pingback: Land of Intolerance? | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.