Like most of the other terrorists in the Middle East Zarqawi is simply an evil man. There is no negotiating with him, nor can he be placated in any way. That today in America a peace movement is growing and contemplating some sort of peaceful give-and-take with the likes of Zarqawi is astounding, though there were millions who in the 1930s believed they could deal politically with Hitler.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Lib Dem Watch reports on events at the Loon Convention:
About three-quarters of an hour before Jody Dunn, the Lib Dem candidate in the Hartlepool by-election, rose to address the conference, stewards went round holding notices that said: "Please wave placards at the end of Jody Dunn speech when indicated by Ed Fordham, who will be standing in front of the stewards' table. Please ensure your placard is the correct way up and displayed towards the stage."
These people want to run the NHS ?
I think it was Oscar Wilde who noted that you needed to have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing. I feel the same way about the alleged martyrdom of Greg Dyke.
Tempting though it is to write Dyke off as another whiny moonbat, he does perform a useful role in the British political ecosphere. Quite simply, Greg Dyke is the reification of a certain strand of modern Liberalism. Take, for example, the sheer narcism of his position. To listen to Dyke's rhectoric, the BushChimpler has unleashed armies of Nazi storm troopers on a genocidal rampage round the cradle of civilisation, yet - with the certainty of the sun rising in the east - Greg's casus belli always comes back to the fact that he lost his job. Yes, global war is important, but only as a backdrop to Dyke signing on.
Or consider his attempts to have his sociological cake and eat it. Here's a guy who appears at media luvvie conventions wailing about his victimisation by 'The Establishment'. A bloke whose personal wealth puts him in the same demographic as premiership footballers and pop stars, yet still claims that being one of the top players in the media is just like being down t'pit in the '30s.
And how about that special pleading ? 'Blair Lied!' says Dyke, yet the only person who really, undeniably, no-question-about-it did lie was Andrew Gilligan, the man Dyke stood behind 100%. But that's OK, it was an honest lie, that Blair's a wrong 'un. Gilligan's a guy who gets results, he's a ….. Really, if these people are going to insist on claiming that the country is knee deep in bent coppers endlessly trying to frame all and sundry, could they at least stop trying to sound so like West Midlands CID ?
Of course, the most striking feature of Dyke prolonged whine is the sheer humbuggery of it all. Here was a man whose organisation was - at the least - a willing dupe in the beasting of Rose Addis, yet he claims to be shocked - shocked! - at the revelation that Blair could be a little underhand when it came to PR. Smearing a seriously ill 93 year old was one thing, but when Blair set the dogs on a mass murdering sociopath, well, that's just going too far.
So, there we have Greg Dyke. Just your average multi-millionaire in the street, well, avenue anyway. A man who couldn't abide Blair's sleazy ways, or at least couldn't abide them just as soon as Blair's agenda diverged from his. Could there be a better pin-up for modern Liberalism ?
Friday, September 24, 2004
Our future PM is vexed by the British womanhood's power dive towards the gutter. It's not just a local thing either. So what's going on ?
I think it's something more specific than the influence of the 60s generally. In fact, I don't think it's an aberration at all. What's happening now is the logical outgrowth of feminist ideology. After all, feminism was always just a distaff variation of Marxism, with Class War replaced by Gender War. Feminists created a caricature of the male species as fascist oppresors, while simultaneously holding that true liberation could only be achieved by women apeing the self-same ludicrous caricature. Add in that feminists - in common with their race hustling fellow travellers - always claimed that society was the product of the Vast White Male Conspiracy and so women were perfectly justified in throwing all standards of good conduct overboard, and is it any surprise that the Mattel is thinking of bringing out 'Slut Barbie' ?
Well, it doesn't happen that often.
Anyway, I think the great man is wrong about the Islamofascist's snuff videos. The analogy with kiddie pr0n doesn't hold. Everyone thinks paedohillic material is evil, but some people are a little more nuanced when it comes to Islamofascists. Even after all this time there are plenty of people still swimming around in De Nile.
Speaking personally, I've never seen one of the vids, and never will. I know what we're dealing with, but some folks won't get it until they actually see the Religion of Peace in action. In fact, I would rather see this on the news than the 'hostage pleading for his life' videos that the media show without any qualms. It need hardly be said that the Jihadi don't release the videos because they think it will harm their cause.
War 101 says that terrorism is the use of violence for political means, and this type of situation is exactly where the implications of that are most apparent. The abduction and beheadings are the violence, the videos are the politics - each is part of the whole, yet the media willingly plays along by providing massive exposure to the terrorists. It is entirely fair to say that the media is acting as a willing accomplice to the killers. Of course, a less cooperative media might not mean less violence, but a media prepared to devote air time and column inches to passing on enemy propaganda in time of war can hardly be said to be discouraging further acts of terrorism. This, of course, from a media which refuses to cover whole swathes of issues and groups (such as the BNP), citing the needs of social stability. The media cannot get away with shouting 'censorship' here - they've already drank that particular Kool Aid on issues far less serious than the defence of civilisation from savages.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Let's get this right: people with certain opinions should be fired from government jobs in case holding those opinions interferes with their work. OTOH, a diplomat (!) who abuses the Head of State of an allied nation while "on duty" is just ducky. Hmmmmm.... still that makes more sense than this:
Although Mr Wilkie's death was unrelated to any NUM activity, Mr Howells feared the police would use the tragedy as a reason to raid the union's offices and uncover its plans for the strike...
"I remember for only the second time in my life my knees began to shake because I thought 'Hang on, we've got all those records we've kept over in the NUM offices, there's all those maps on the wall, we're going to get implicated in this.'
Yes, indeed. Unrelated, except that the files would've implicated the NUM. Errrr...OK.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Today has provided two further pieces of evidence for my theory that in the Liberal's ideal world everyone will go to prison for fifteen minutes.
Down in Bedfordshire the Bill are holding a gun amnesty. So far, so clichéd. No doubt such amnesties persuade a few eighty-somethings to turn in their souvenirs - thereby helping to cut down on the number of murders committed using lugars. Except that this time there's a twist.
Say what ? 'Gun amnesty targets air weapons' - just phone the fascist prat and ask what would happen if there wasn't an amnesty. It's a blatant attempt by the Filth to intimidate people into handing over perfectly legal items. And how does this sleazebag justify this thuggery ? Ah yes: - "People don't know if firearms are real or imitation and are afraid when they are spotted." We'll leave aside that fact that off-the-shelf air weapons are neither real nor imitation firearms and ask if the same principle dictates policy generally ? After all, I'm sure I could dig up some people who fear blacks. Should their paranoia drive public policy ? In fact, to apply the above principle, should police officers also clamp down on Asians as the aforementioned nuts may mistake them for blacks ? Or do the Police only act on the rantings of bigots whose prejudices they agree with ?
Meanwhile, as the Kool Aid drinkers in blue are busily preparing the ground for Jihad against owners of water pistols, their fellow travellers claim the sentences for actually capping someone are way too harsh.
Truly, this report is a masterpiece of Liberal philosophising:
Members of the council decided in June that reduction of sentences for guilty pleas would be an "ideal first guideline".
The council will say rewarding a guilty plea with a discount saves time and money that would otherwise be spent on a contested trial.
Isn't that just splendid ? Here's an iron rule of politics: when Liberals object to excessive spending, you can bet the issue is either national defence or law enforcement. Free aromatherapy for the long-term unemployed will pay for itself, but mention protecting the public and the L3 turn into budget hawks.
The next line is even better:
A reduction also encourages the offender to admit what he or she has done, generally avoiding the need for victims and witnesses to give evidence.
Protecting the victim from the trauma of giving evidence being particularly important in the case of murder trials.
"Remorse is special personal mitigation requiring elasticity, as a discount of more than one third may be appropriate where absolute candour is demonstrated," the members said.
Yep, we'll just check 'em out with the remorsalyser, and if they score higher than 8.5, the years come off. But wait….. You say there's no such thing as a remorsalyser ? Looks like it'll come down to the opinion of a beardy-weirdy member of the self-same L3 elite that has always been against strong sentencing in the first place. Asking them if a murderer should get a break is like asking Michael Moore if he wants something to eat.
The guidelines have been drawn up by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, a new statutory body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said in March that the establishment of the council was a "key reform to put the sense back into sentencing.
…thereby killing the myth that we are governed by soundbites.
However, it was not clear yesterday how he would react to the prospect that some murderers could serve less than the 15 years he regards as the minimum tariff.
Is it politics or is it Key Stage 2 Maths ? Let's see: minimum fifteen years, one-third discount equals…..not fifteen that's for sure. In other words, a Blunkett policy has been torn up almost before the ink is dry. Again.
So that's where we are today. Bedfordshire Constabulary desperately flipping through the 1722 Sundry Offences And Outrages Act trying to find some way to bust a local GP who enjoys plinking, while their ideological soul mates conspire to try and get psychos back on the streets ASAP. But remember, 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Lembit Optik has a good article in the Telegraph about the hunting-with-dogs thing. But what really struck me was one comment which, more than any other, really summed up the state of modrn Leftism:
Often their motivation has no bearing on animal welfare at all. The contradictions were highlighted by a pro-ban Labour MP during the committee stage of a previous hunt ban Bill. As Ian Cawsey outlined his opposition to chasing and killing animals for pleasure, I asked him about fishing.
According to the RSPCA, fish feel pain, so what's the difference? Dr Ian Gibson, the Labour MP for Norwich North, responded: "Fish are not mammals." To which Mr Cawsey replied ". . . at least not yet." The mind boggles.
I haven't written much about memogate - after all, there's a whole country full of people better qualified than me to do it - but this is just brilliant:
Well, Danny, you still ain’t lost all your redneck habits; you boys took one pickup load to the dump an’ come back with two. Dadgummit, Dan, where you gittin’ all this stuff? You been callin’ some kinda mystery numbers that ol’ boy, whatsisname, Kenneth, is bringin’ you offa bathroom walls at truck stops?
It was 'Yes Minister' which first suggested the rule that the more politicans talk about something, the less actual importance they attach to it. Tony Blair seems dead set on proving this theory. After all, here's the man who proclaimed 'Education, Education, Education' yet has surrendered the curriculum to all manner of single-issue fanatics, social engineers and general loony toons. This is just the latest example:
Secondary schools in England should fall foul of Ofsted inspectors if they do not take race relations seriously enough, a government adviser says.
Seriously, can you imagine this sort of thing being suggested so overtly in relation to health care ? Stripped of touchy-feely rhetoric, this boils down to a belief that the normal business of education is sufficiently unimportant that it's no hardship to carve a chunk out a chunk of time and resources for the el cubo cause d'jour.
They are all being sent "community cohesion standards" to aim for.
Three words which sum up perfectly all that is most disturbing about Nu Labour.
The aim of the Home office guidelines is to tackle discrimination and promote good race relations.
Because, of course, if you aren't already queuing up for a slug of this latest Kool Aid, why, you must be in favour of bad relations and for discrimination.
Keith Ajegbo, head of Deptford Green School, London, who chaired the group behind them, said "going through the hoops" should not be enough.
A rallying cry for witch hunters throughout the ages. Back in the day, these people targeted those who really did think Asians could never understand complex stuff like medicine. Somehow, that evolved into persecution of those who failed to carry out the idiot rituals of multiculturalism. Now, they claim the right to persecute even those who do hold the prescribed two-minute hate every day. This is where modern Liberalism's at.
Let's spin that wheel around. If Conservatives treated paedophilia the way Liberals treat racism, we'd be claiming the right to fire Liberal teachers who we believed weren't being fanatical enough in denouncing Ian Huntley. Would that be OK with the L3 ? And, if not, why not ?
The idea arose from the Cantle report on the disturbances in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001.
And what sounder foundation for policy could there be than two of the most dishonest reports ever produced in modern Britain ?
That said that schools were central to breaking down the barriers between young people.
And what would that barrier be [free clue: the natives weren't fighting the Amish, Animists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Pagans, Sikhs or Zorostans] ?
They define a cohesive community as one where everyone has a common vision and sense of belonging.
Which is what Conservatives have been saying for years, only to be burnt at the stake for crimes against multiculturalism. So, which is it ? Common vision or multiculturalism ?
People's different backgrounds would be appreciated and valued and would not affect their "life opportunities".
All of which is the Liberal equivalent of mom, God and apple pie. Of course, all the evidence points to the fact that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and the like do just ducky in the UK, so if - hypothetically speaking - there're groups which do not-so-hotso, it just may reflect on them rather than revealing any actions of those nasty natives.
Those from different backgrounds would develop "strong and positive relationships".
Although, if you think someone is the son of pigs and monkeys and his sister is a whore, that would tend to put a dampner on the relationship.
Among the objectives are that testing does not put any group at a disadvantage.
Curses! They've found our cunning plan. We carefully calibrate the tests so that Jews, Hindus and Buddhists can excel while ROPers and home boys are cruelly deprived of the chance to shine. Let me tell you, it's not as easy as you think, trying to find a test that'll give easy marks to folks from one side of Khasmir while slamming the folks from the ROP side.
The curriculum has to be accessible to all and allow everyone to learn about their wider communities.
Hang on a minute! They just got through babbling about a common vision and a cohesive community, now they're talking about 'communities'. Which is it ? And, given that 'accessible for all' is just a politick way of talking about 'No Speaka Da Inglish' education, how can they learn about the wider community when they can't even speak the language ?
Behaviour and discipline policies are supposed to reflect this mutual respect and acceptance of diversity.
Yep, multiculturalism is back and worse than ever. In case you're wondering what this means in practice, Laban Tall pointed it out earlier: here's the money quote -'The conference recommended that… black children should not be excluded for a first offence unless the offence involved a knife or a gun.'
"Yes, yes, he and six mates beat someone unconscious then molested three girls, but you have to recognise that behaving like an animal is all part of Jamaican/Guyanian/Swedish/Martian culture."
As ever, this raises the question: what if a white guy had claimed that being pond scum was a natural part of black identity ? Somehow, I suspect Mr Ajegbo would see things a little differently.
And, unlike now, there should be no significant differences in exclusion rates between social or ethnic groups.
Yes, because racism is the only possible explanation for different exclusion rates between folks who listen to their Rabbi and those who listen to FU2's new CD 'Kop Killa'.
Mr Ajegbo said the aim was to support the excellent work already developed by many schools across the country.
"If you are an inner city, multi-ethnic school you have probably thought this through anyway because the issues are pressing," he told BBC News Online.
In other words, he admits that the schools that need to deal with these issues, deal with them. So what's his problem ?
But teachers from minority backgrounds should feel able to go to schools in other areas.
Hang on again! We were talking about the kids, right ? But don't go saying that Big Education is producer led. Anyway, what evidence is there that ethnic teachers don't feel able to skeddaddle when the mood takes them ? Nope - the statement (together with the implicit charge of racism against any school which isn't situated in an inner city hell hole) is made sans any supporting evidence whatsoever. Typical of most race hustlers, he has no qualms about stereotyping when it suits his needs.
He did not think that legislation or quotas were the best ways forward.
Being realistic, a lot of schools would want to work through the standards - but others would regard it as an exercise in "going through the hoops".
That would be the sane ones.
The test should be: if you were a school with poor "community cohesion" but in some regards achieving well, could you be put into the Ofsted classification of having "serious weaknesses"?
In his view the answer was "yes".
This is where I came in. How exactly does a commitment to education square with trying to strong-arm schools into carrying out PC indoctrination ?
"Everyone sees league tables and Sats as important, because if you don't you are hammered," he said.
Community cohesion should be regarded in the same way.
Of course, he has to resort to these kind of vague mutterings about 'hammering' schools - after all, he probably knows full well that when OFSTED reports that a school is Grade A for academics, but F for thought-control, the most likely result is a tidal wave of parents trying to get their kids in.
But change, in areas such as Bradford - where some good work was being done - had to come from the community itself.
Which is why he's demanding that central government coerce schools into trying to indoctrinate the kids into multiculturalism.
That was why schools were so important in the process, Mr Ajegbo said.
Yes, they give race hustling no-marks the chance to spend public money trying to brainwash the public while young and vulnerable so that they won't notice that the multicultural parrot is dead.
Of course, we shouldn't be too hard on ol' Keith. After all, he's just being more honest about the true nature of Nu Lab's policy. Take his statement that inner city, multi-ethnic schools are already drinking the Kool Aid. True enough, but - how can I put this ? - if we compare the progress of black children in North Yorkshire and North London, it doesn't exactly argue in favour of these policies. Au contrair - these people claim they're worried about under-achievement amongst ethnic minorities, yet they have no shame about claiming that 'Behaviour and discipline policies are supposed to reflect this mutual respect and acceptance of diversity.' And if the beneficiaries of such policies have a rude awakening once they find that the real world isn't so accommodating ? What are they going to do ? Vote Conservative ?
Nope - an education policy aimed at maximising achievement would throw all this nonsense overboard. Then again, that isn't the point here. When Mr Ajegbo claims he wants teachers from minority backgrounds to be able to go to schools in other areas, he's hinting at the real agenda. Of course, he doesn't really believe that a black physics teacher wanting to teach in Shropshire will be greeted with rampaging mobs of skinheads. What he really means is that his fellow race hustlers should be able to mau-mau their way into jobs across the whole country. Every school should be forced to splash out on its very own contingent of grievance mongers. Success, as he explicitly says, should be judged by just how fanatically schools embrace the cultural Marxist agenda. This is the central humbuggery of modern Liberalism - they sing paeans to diversity, yet when it comes down to the only diversity that really matters, the diversity of ideas, they have the KKK beat hands down.
Unsurprisingly, the one solid achievement of this lurch into social engineering is a boom in out-of-hours damage control. Of course, if your parents can't afford it, you're kind of screwed, but hey ? That's the price you pay for equality.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
"The money you gave me was counterfeit!" he hissed back. "I mean, golly gosh, imagine my surprise when I learned that Bill Clinton isn't even on the $100 bill!"
"Don't try to confuse the issue!" I snapped at him. "The authenticity of the bill is irrelevant, you partisan pajama operative! It's the information ON it that matters. Besides, I know a 90 year old woman up at the retirement home who worked for Bill Clinton back in 1972, and she'll confirm that he wants to be on the $100 bill. If that isn't good enough for you, then I'll just take my money back and my business elsewhere!"
Liberal Larry (who else ?) on book shopping.
Another thing about the whole hunting with dogs situation: the Guardian coming out in favour of police brutality. Who knew ? Previously, the Guardian has spent its time arguing that police shouldn't use riot shields because they act a barrier to communication with rioting mobs. But the sight of cops smashing country people in the head with batons has got the Guardianistas cracking open the champers. Truly, if you live long enough, you see everything.
But, what of the over side of the great divide ? Plenty of country folks are doubtless enraged about being pummelled by the plod, but where were they when this happened ? Here was the textbook example of exactly how much your rights are worth if you're a member of a group deemed undesirable. Hey - at least they're all still alive.
About that hunting ban - where's the Human Rights Act when we need it ? I'm serious - here we have an act that supposedly guarantees convicted murderers access to hardcore pr0n, yet has nothing to say about a government trying to destroy an entire culture and way of life simply because it judges the people concerned to have no role in it's new utopia ? Surely not!
Actually, the HRA being the very epitome of socialist social engineering, I don't expect it does cover this sort of thing, but stepping away from the letter of the law to it's spirit, this is a case which surely shows the essentially fraudulent basis of much of the Liberal establishments rhetoric about the HRA. After all, whenever a judges passes down a give-the-killer-pr0n decision the L3 hail it as a great victory for justice over mob rule. The HRA, so they boast, allows their own, enlightened selves to push through their vision of progressive justice, free of interference by the lager-poisoned, tabloid-brainwashed masses and their proxies in Parliament. Yet, Nu Lab claim country folk should just shut the Hell up about it because the decision was taken by Parliament. Say what ?
The Liberal establishment wants to have it's cake and eat it. They want to allow their fellow travellers in the judiciary to strike down even those laws passed with broad support in both Parliament and in the country as a whole, yet when they pass laws that are entirely vindictive and seek to persecute a whole section of the public suddenly the L3 are rabid democrats. But don't call them incoherent.
Ah yes, what could be more charatceristcic of the countryside than the smell of manure ? That's certainly the smell I'm getting from the hunting debate. Check out the whole question of cruelty to our little red-haired mate. I could also buy, but look at the alternatives.
Liberals want to replace hunting with dogs with gassing or shooting. I'm not sure how they decided drowning in your own bodily fluid was a nice way to go. Where's Wilf when we need him ? Let's put the theory to the test: tell the Liberals that Reynaud has been convicted of murder in Arizona and see how humane they think the gas chamber is then.
But the other alternative ? GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNS!!! Everyone knows what gun owners are like: nasty Nazi nuts. That's why barely a week goes by without one of them massacring a whole restaurant full of people while quoting from Mein Kampf. That's why Nu Lab giving a platform to the psychos of the Snowdrop campaign was actually a great moment in democracy. That's why even things that only look like guns should be banned. But, when the chance to bash the toffs comes along, Nu Lab drops its hopolophobia like a red-hot porcupine. Does anyone seriously think that gun owners won't be back in their usual position as Enemies of the People just as soon as the last hound is put down ?
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
This is a scream. Apparently, there's a new computer game been released in the US, kind of in the Championship Manager mould, except running a presidential campaign rather than a football club. Anyway, one of the characters..... no, you've got to check it out yourself.
Mr Free Market passes on a vision of the progressive future that lies ahead under Lurch:
WASHINGTON, DC (AP) - Congress approved sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans with No Abilities Act (AWNAA), signed into law by President John Kerry shortly after its passage, is being hailed as a major victory by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.
"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Kerry, a longtime AWNA supporter. "This is why many of them voted for me. We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over.
For all the talk of vibrant "multi-culturalism", Blair's Britain is strikingly unicultural - diversity of race, gender and orientation, but a ruthless homogeneity of metropolitan modishness imposed by a highly centralised politico-media culture. America is a federal state and thus local majorities prevail: in New Hampshire, we like hunting; in the gay environs of Fire Island, the thrill of the chase lies elsewhere. Each, as I said, to his own.
In Britain, Soho's views on hunting should be no more relevant than Somerset's opinion of gay leather bars. But they are. And those Left-wing columnists who go on about the "climate of fear" in Bush's America ought to remember that, even in their wildest power-crazed dreams, Bush and John Ashcroft will never be able to issue a national ban on centuries-old traditions merely because they offend metropolitan taste. Nor, unlike the modern British state, are they able to keep the populace under 24-hour video surveillance, whether you're at the railway station, in the shopping centre, or strolling down a leafy country lane.
That's Mark Steyn, if you didn't guess. He's quite right, of course, and he's exactly right to contrast the treatment of country folk with that of homosexuals. After all, to listen to gay rights activists you could be convinced that Sir Elton's mansion was under constant siege from baying mobs of conservatives. Sorry to disappoint any of them reading, but what the average social conservative thinks about homosexuals is that he doesn't. Folk in Cheshire talk about events in the Manchester Village about as often as they talk about happenings on Venus, and with as much intent to try and control them. Yet this vice is definitely not versa. Au contrair, the Left can't stop itself trying to force Cheshire into one big Village. Whether it's Gay Marriage, sex education for foetuses, opposition to faith schools or any one of a hundred other issues, there's no doubt who's trying to dictate to who these days.
Against this background the Conservative Party has been worse than useless. It's as if they've spent so long believing in themselves as the natural party of government that they haven't noticed that they are not, in fact, in government. British Conservatism's response to this Gramscian onslaught is hobbled by the fact few Conservatives have any principled objection to this kind of social engineering. Sure, they may have qualms about five year olds being taught about the full Monica, but there are few who can conceive of social engineering not being a valid role for schools.. Steyn, again:
The inability of Conservatives to defend hunting sums up the problems of British conservatism. At the time of the first Countryside March, Joanna Trollope said that the essential ingredients of village life are "church, pub, farms, cottages, a small school and a Big House". That's swell if you're the one in the Big House, but presenting rural Britain as a haven of deference and social order cripples its political viability. In Britain, this is an undeferential age - see Digby Anderson on oiks et al. Rural America is about individual liberty - where even the brokest of broke losers with no teeth can still have a few acres, a rusting trailer, a hunting licence and a "Survivors Will Be Prosecuted" sign at the foot of his drive.
As long as British conservatism recoils from individual liberty and clings to Joanna Trollope Big-House social order, it will be unable to offer a viable modern defence of that which it wishes to conserve.
Indeed. It is the nature of government that it will, at all levels, be vulnerable to hijacking by those who wish to impose a radical agenda on the public. Conservatives can not be in favour of the means while merely disputing the ends. Conservatives must recognise that the only defence for our values is liberty, for as long there exists the means for government to impose its values on the public, there will be those on the Left who will seek to use this power for their own ends.
First the Caped Crusader drops in at Betty's, now Parliament gets invaded by ordinaries (thereby marking the first time since the Gunpowder Plot that people have entered the place with honest intentions).
So, not really a good week for the Five-Oh. Well, OK, who didn't know Sir John Stevens was a Liberal sock puppet ? Check out Officer Dave for further evidence of what the Met really does these days. Still, I think there's another factor at work here.
Previously, the status of protestor has been reserved for weirdos, trustafairians, druggies and the all-of-the-above formely known as the teaching profession. Say what you like about them, but at least you knew where you were with them. Stick 'em next to MackeyDs and let them blow off steam with some mindless vandalism. But, the great achievement of this government is to open up whole new opportunities in riotous affray for people who previously would never have thought of driving a six-inch nail through a golfball.
Suddenly the government is faced with people who aren't simply immature narcissists whose sole objective is to engage in conspicuous radicalism. Now, they are faced with people prepared to think long and hard about how to screw with the system. Yet, Nu Lab still maintains it can maintain an iron grip on the countryside using little more than technology and lightning raids by police officers. May I suggest Blunkett consider what happened last time that was tried.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Forget Iraq, the real Viet Nam analogy is right here back home. Check this out. It's ICICLE WHITE all over again - the elctronic surveillance of the Ho Chi Minh trail, reborn in a Cheshire hedgerow.
Forget the civil liberties implications of vast tracts of the countryside being wired up. It's the sheer insanity of it all that's overwhelming.
I mean, really: imagine a bunch of farmers staking out a bank. Exactly. But a bunch of cops are going to penetrate deep into the countryside and establish electronic surveillance while the dopey locals fail utterly to notice that that bush wasn't there yesterday. In fact, considering the size of the areas involved, the locals will have to not notice several thousand bushes sprouting overnight.
Of course, there is one problem with this cunning plan:
Some senior police have voiced concern that the measure could be easily foiled by riders and foot followers donning balaclavas.
Mr Blunkett, however, was said to be enthusiastic about the idea….
Blunkett enthusiastic about massive surveillance on the flimsiest of grounds ? That is a surprise. But don't ask about his personal life, that's private. Anyway, where was I ?
Mr Blunkett, however, was said to be enthusiastic about the idea, believing that cameras would be an affordable way of allowing police to identify where illegal hunts are taking place before moving in.
Does anyone else hear the distant echo of the chicken and the egg here ? But remember, none of you country folk go dressing up and riding round and round the same camera forty times just to persuade the Filth to push out a major effort for nothing. That just wouldn't be nice.
Amongst the hundred and seventy reasons why I don't think the Conservatives should be 'reaching out to minority groups' (or whatever the euphemism d'jour is today) is the humbuggery of it all. People who believe that government intervention usually spells disaster will nevertheless stand up and tell blacks/gays/red-heads/Martians/whatever that the Conservative Party genuinely believes that they've got no chance of making it without Big Government to nanny them. This patronising gunk relies on two horribly insulting assumptions - namely that the designated victim group is a) too stupid to come to the same conclusions about government intervention and b) won't even notice that the Party speaks with a forked tongue.
Fortunately, despite the best efforts of Tory modernisers, some folks are still escaping from Nu Lab's Big Gulag. True, the thought of Garth Crooks positioning himself as a principled opponent of race hustling has a certain 'Al Capone Chair in Business Ethics' quality to it, but check out Kwame Kwei-Armah's comments. It's a sign of the times when it's considered revolutionary to suggest that the spawn of a white trash single mother in Salford may - just may - need more help than the bratty offspring of a black Premiership star. It's also a sign when a luvvie talks more sense on this issue than most pols.
As if Armani Trev didn't have enough to send him off to Beachy Head, check out the results of this survey.
More than half the members of ethnic minorities resident in Britain believe those settling in the UK should learn to speak English, a survey suggests.
More than 90% of 3,000 questioned said those arriving in Britain should not expect special treatment.
It doesn't get any better for him either, despite the best efforts of the Beeb to spin it:
Non-white people who replied had a more positive view of asylum seekers than white Britons.
Eleven per cent of non-whites said they had a high opinion of asylum seekers, compared with just 5% among the white population.
Wow, 11% that's, like, almost within 4% of the support for well-known lunatic fringe group, UKIP. Apparently, the definition of fringe varies from group to group. But there's still 89% of ethnics who don't appreciate paying taxes to support some waster from Gdansk. Who'd have thunk it ?
Still, let no one say Armani Trev didn't go down spinning:
[Trevor Phillips] told the newspaper: "Most British Muslims want nothing more than to be part of the community.
"Our poll shows that they feel just as strongly as the rest of us about terrorism, even if it is carried out in the name of Islam….
Islamist terrorists have gained little support among Britain's Muslim community, according to the poll, with just 3% of those questioned from an Asian background saying that militant groups were right to take on the West.
WTF ? Since when were all Asians ROPers ? For that matter, since when was the ROP confined to Asia ? Do I detect some Islamocoddling ?
Still, the good news is right here:
The poll suggested that Labour's traditional advantage among non-white voters may have been eroded, with just 25% of ethnic minority respondents saying they backed the party, against 17% who supported the Conservatives.
And nary a pander in sight
Friday, September 10, 2004
The Telegraph has a profile of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It's worth reading, after all she's had the Islamic seal of approval:
Such has been the anger she has provoked among the Netherlands' Muslim population, with her scathing attacks on the prophet Mohammed (she likens him to a lecherous tyrant) and the Koran (in part a licence for oppression, she says), that she has been the subject of several fatwas, or death edicts, has received letters saying that she will be knifed or shot and is now guarded around the clock by two armed bodyguards.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
The Guardian has been showing signs of sanity recently, however normal service was resumed today:
There were fears yesterday that a controversial conference to commemorate the 9/11 hijackers and other al-Qaida terrorists would provoke rightwing thugs to attack British Muslims.
Omar Bakri, leader of the extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, plans to hold the convention this Saturday, the third anniversary of the attack on the twin towers, at an as yet undisclosed location in east London.
Anjam Choudry, the UK secretary general of al-Muhajiroun, rejected suggestions that the conference would be a celebration of the 9/11 hijackers, but confirmed it would feature videos of Osama bin Laden and discussions of jihad, as well as a lecture dedicated to dead al-Qaida leaders.
Yep, it's that Islamophobic backlash again. Coming to a town near you soon...really soon - honest, they'll be a backlash any minute now, going to be real horrible and everything.....don't know where it's got to...
The Guardian provides yet another confirmation that there's nothing that gives a better guide to what Liberals really believe than what they say when they think they have the moral high ground. The Guardian's worried that Jihadis holding a grave-dancing session will provoke the Right. Apparently, being outraged about people coming out in support of mass murder is just a far-out Right-Wing Death Beast thing. So, they're admitting that the Left doesn't really give a toss about Islamofascism after all ? Can they at least stop claiming they opposed the Iraq invasion on the grounds that it was a distraction from a War on Terror that they don't care about anyway ?
Things don't get any better:
However, some supporters of a group called the United British Alliance, which intends to lay a wreath at the US embassy on Saturday to commemorate the victims of 9/11, have threatened to "stand up to" those they see as apologists for terrorism.
'...those they see as apologists for terror'. As ever, the Guardian skips lightly over the question of what they would call them. Agrarian reformers ? I wonder how the Guardian would describe a group who held a party on the anniversary of Stephen Lawrence's murder ? And if a second group organised a counter-demonstration, would they be left-wing thugs ?
Not in this Universe.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Never trust a Liberal: they love their rhectoric about fighting for The People, but when the emphasis switches from the abstract to dealing with actual, real persons, all bets are off.
For the latest example of this great universal truth, look no further than the actions of the World's Greatest Broadcaster. Hey - so they did all but drop the bloke off at Secret Police HQ ? BUSH KNEW! 45 MINUTES! HALLIBERRY!
Laban Tall reports on a new low, even for the Indie. Of course, for the full effect you have to remember that these were the people who squawked about Ann Coulter operating 'so far outside the generally accepted confines of political debate'.
Irony, thy name is Liberalism.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Laban Tall is back, and blogging up a storm. This post set me thinking though - to listen to John Humphrys whining it sounds like his major beef with the '24 hr Shag Channel' and the like is that folk are making money off it. Would churning out filth be OK providing you do it as a hobby or an act of charity ?
El Steyn nails it again:
So the particular character of this "insurgency" does not derive from the requirements of "asymmetrical warfare" but from . . . well, let's see, what was the word missing from those three analyses of the Beslan massacre? Here's a clue: half the dead "Chechen separatists" were not Chechens at all, but Arabs. And yet, tastefully tiptoeing round the subject, The New York Times couldn't bring itself to use the words Muslim or Islamist, for fear presumably of offending multicultural sensibilities.
Except that, as ever, the tenets of the multi-cult only cover one side of the argument. Mentioning that the murderors were ******* is verboten, but implying that the massacre is all down to those drunken slavic neandathals is just ducky.
Well, as luck would have it, we may have a chance to test that hypothesis in the near future.
If a group of lunatics were waging a campaign to take over the whole north of England and create a Christian theocracy, what chance is there that the BBC would refer to them as 'Yorkshire separatists' ?
Of course, the Dhimmis at the Beeb always push the line that they're just 'Chechen separatists' - never mind trivia like wondering what proportion of them are actually Chechen, or noting that they lay claim to a whole swathe of land which only incidentally includes Chechnya - let's just accept that they really are just a group of people who reject interference from the rest of Russian and want Chechnya ruled from Grozny. If you were a man from Mars looking at the different ways the two groups are covered by the BBC, wouldn't you think it was UKIP which was waging a vicious campaign of terrorism against the EU while the 'Chechen rebels' merely fought election campaigns ?