Thursday, March 24, 2005

Paging Dr Freud

The Guardians of Moral Seriousness at the Indie are deeply concerned, as Kofi would no doubt say, about people stirring up hysteria over paedophillia. As Laban points out, there's more than a hint of projection here. The Indie has a fine track record of waving the bloody shirt when it can advance the left wing agenda, and in particular the interest of the anti-family fanatics at the NSPCC. At least the knuckledraggers are worried about actual crimes - the defining feature about the Indie's moment of glory was the way techniques such as trawling were used to manufacture crimes out of thin air.

Still, we have one interesting revelation:

Rising hostility toward minority groups, clamour for tough sentences against offenders and a sinister desire for retribution are being driven by an increasingly prevalent right-wing agenda.
Yes, you've got us: the VRWC is involved in a dark conspiracy to target perverts.

It says a lot about the kool aid-sodden world of the Indie that it doesn't even occur to them that's they've given the game away here. Here it is straight from the horses' mouth: protecting kids from predators is part of the right-wing agenda while the Left thinks paedophilies are a persecuted minority, much like blacks (but Tories are racists!).

Hey - how come Libs get all tetchy when I say that ?

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Making It

How do you spot a top-flight blog ? I like to think its when the regulars make the comments as unmissable as the posts. Take this post - Larry is great, but don't miss this comment as an explanation of the wierd Liberal obsession with killing Terri Schiavo:

Of coarse the Dems want Teri to be dead. That will qualify her to vote for them in 08.

Outrage D'Jour

The Briffameister points out this latest atrocity. I think we all knew that was going to happen, now it's just a matter of a race to the bottom. Doubtless, the BBC will be all over this.....

Monday, March 21, 2005

Liberals Gone Feral!

It's hardly an original observation to say that the problem with the counter-culture was that it was just that: an essentially reactionary movement, certain about what it despised, yet lacking any worldview of it's own. I'd only add that I'm sure that Liberalism's elite (Cherie and her ilk) do have a certain vision in mind, it's just that they realise if they explained it in public they'd get lynched. Nevertheless, the common or garden Liberal is a lot more certain about what he hates than what he likes.

I wasn't going to blog about the Terri Schiavo case, not only because there are about 300 million people better qualified, but also because it's one of those issues that's purely moral. There's no political aspect to it, it's more metaphysical than ideological. Right ?

Hey - anyone know if there's a treatment for chronic naivety ? In the comments to this post at Biased BBC Susan points to this thread at DHYS. I haven't seen the Left this buzzed about a potential death since Reagan got shot. At least this means that if we can just get Ian Huntley into a coma then the Left will let us nail him.

But no. The Left isn't really talking about euthanasia, they're talking about sticking it to Adolf McChimpler and his hordes of crazed Christian Fundies. That's the true measure of the hollowness at the centre of modern Liberalism. They're cheering on a killing just for the chance to flick two fingers at the religious right.

Let's be clear about this. The Christians oppose euthanasia, just like they've always done. It's the Left that's backflipped for political advantage. If a Right-To-Life campaigner had suggested a hypothetical case along these lines, the Left would've gone bananas. Never mind Right-To-Lifers, this case doesn't even rise to the level most pro-euthanasia campaigners argue for:

The Patient Has To Have Expressed The Desire To Die: That means living wills, not single, off-the-cuff comments recalled years after.

The Patient's Surrogate Has To Consent: That's a patient surrogate as in a family member, not some guy who wandered off years ago but never got round to doing the paperwork.

The Patient's Surrogate Has To Be Independent: In other words, not ready to score a huge wodge once the patient shuffles off this mortal coil.

We Should Be Sure Of The Diagnosis: And if there are conflicting ones then....

In Case Of Dispute, Default To Safe: If even Bin Laden is presumed innocent it's a bit much for someone to get whacked based on balance of probabilities.

It's possible to be pro-euthanasia and still oppose this case. In fact, I would argue that, whatever eventually happens, this case could become a strategic disaster for euthanasia campaigners. Not only has the Left's simlar strategy of casting Christians as illiterate redneck morons not been entirely successful electorally, but pro-euthanasia campaigners can't have their cake and eat it. It's hard to argue that there is a morally-serious case for euthanasia while giving house room to people seemingly prepared to kill someone merely to spite the Jesus freaks.

So, I Guess 'The Secret Jihadi' Is Off Then ?

No doubt the Beeb would dismiss this purely as the luck of the draw, just a completely amazing coincidence. OK, so what's with this ?

Let's not equivocate here. If you were relying on the BBC's coverage you would have got a completely warped perspective on the true nature of the demonstrators. Yes - that is the BBC, the 'uniquely funded', £3 billion a year Beeb. The BBC that almost gave itself repetitive strain injury patting itself on the back over 'The Secret Policeman'. The BBC that can't hardly run a story on Michael Howard without claiming that 'some are suggesting' that Mikey is pandering to extremists. Yet when there are real extremists, real advocates of violence, parading virtually past its front window, the Beeb decides what we really need is clichés: the wacky eccentric pensioner and the antiwar ex-soldiers (all two of them).

This isn't just bias. Forget the politics - this is just bad journalism. The alleged journalists could have sat in the staff canteen and simply changed a few words on the press release. They're not slanting their reports, they've actually stopped doing any reporting. Just where does that £3 billion go ?

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Scaring The Horses

There's a story about the British Army in World War II. Apparently, they were a bit pressed for artillery so they reconditioned some Boer War pieces. Fortunately, they still had the original operations manuals, but no one could work out why they were supposed to detail a gunner to stand at the side of the gun when it fired. It was only when they located one of the now ancient authors that they found out that the soldier was there to steady the horses.

I was reminded of this story when I heard about the latest round of Bush appointments. The genius of President Bush is that he can see what works in foreign policy and what is merely steadying long-gone horses. Take the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to the World Bank. The Usual Suspects have been suitably enraged at Chimpy Von Halliburton's latest snub to the international communidee, but is the World Bank really such a great advert for the tranzi worldview ? As the Rottweiler Puppy points out, during its six decade existence, the World Bank has been about as much use as guy stroking a non-existent horse.

If actual alleviation of poverty is your thing, the World Bank is notso hotso. Say what you like about Wolfowitz, but he's no time-server. You'd think the Toyota Taliban would be happy about someone trying to spark some life into the World Bank.

No, just kidding. Our pondscum NGOs not only increasingly resemble the vast supranational bureaucracies, they also share the same cultural DNA. Poverty is a useful cover story, but the real objective remains what it always was: imposing the tranzi agenda. They oppose Wolfowitz not because he won't be effective, but because he might be. Either Wolfowitz helps make the World Bank an effective tool against poverty, neatly debunking everything the tranzis have ever said about poverty, or the tranzis immobilise him, thereby exposing their own agenda and proving how irredeemable the whole mess is. Whatever happens, it'll be a win for the US and a defeat for the tranzis.

But at least the L3 can keep on reassuring each other that Dubya is a moron.

The Pathology Of The Left

The Beeb's comment section is justifiably notorious which is why it's frequently referred to as Don't Have Your Say. Then again, as Honest Abe once said, the thing that kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself, and DHYS certainly provides a fabulous platform for the Left to show their true nature.

Take a look at this thread and note how many of the L3 are incapable simply of congratulating this heroic individual without injecting their own pathetic political points. It's the perfect measure of the monomania and self-obsession of the modern Left: yezhesahero BUT what about the BushChimpler and his illegal war for....

Maybe that's what the Left mean when they talk about a classless society ?

Meanwhile, the BBC proves there are some forms of bigotry which are just ducky, with the not at all loaded question 'How can gun crime be tackled ?'. Read and enjoy, and don't miss the comment that more than any other sums up the hoplophopbe's mindset:

Zero tolerance, 25 years for owning any gun, including air-guns. No licenses for any purpose whatsoever, no clubs, no fakes, no decommissioned weapons. £10,000 reward and anonymity for reporting any gun ownership. Censorship on all films and games involving guns or ammunition, including old-favourites like 'High Noon'.
Colin Harrison, London England
You see ? It's all Gary Cooper's fault.

Too Much Kool Aid

If you want a true barometer of where we are in the Culture Wars, consider this latest revelation about the horrific chimp attack in California. Here's a free clue: if you really think you can reason with an enraged wild animal, you definitly need to stop watching the BBC.

Don't Even Joke About It

Yes, it's all very funny now, but give it a week and the Beeb will be running lachrymose docos about discrimination against the imp community, Cherie will represent one in a human rights case and White Flag Walker will be giving speeches encouraging them to join the Army.

Mind you, that still leaves the main question unanswered: are they practicing True Goblinicity ?

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Hell: A Tourist Guide

One of the best things about the net is that you see a lot of stuff that would never sneak through the PC sensors, or indeed censors, in mainstream publications. Stuff kind of like this - also worth checking out this thread, from whence the link was found. But for the last word on the whole horrible business there's really only one man.

Personally, I'd Rather Have Kept The Snakes

Mr FreeMarket reminds us that 93 years ago today Captain Oates went for his fateful walk.

Personally, I think that's a small price to pay for avoiding all this loveable Oirish crap. The folks at Tangled Web sum it up pretty well. Still, there's a little more to it than that.

I remember our future PM wondering why some many Brit Bloggers were pleased to tip their hats to the Yanks on July 4 when, all things considered, what was actually being celebrated was a British defeat. Actually, his argument was a little more nuanced, but it does raise an interesting point. The Declaration of Independence is kind of dull, but it does raise a number of serious charges against the Crown. The Constitution of the Unites States is one of the most sublime documents in existence. I can't imagine a country which wouldn't be improved by - at least - adopting the principles enumerated in this document - America, for example. The constitution is animated above all else by a belief in the limitlessness of human potential.

But Ireland ? Yes, they keep going on about cleansing Ireland of the British, but what else ? Irish nationalism is a philosophy almost uniquely devoid of any elevated concepts. True, there is a warped parody of The Faith which owes more to Tony Soprano than His Holiness, plus industrial quantities of victimhood, but apart from that ? Nada.

Partition in Ireland was like the sink estate seceding from the rest of town. The only problem with it was this: in the US they said 'Go west', in Ireland they say 'Go east until you get to Britain, breed like rats, hit the welfare like a battering ram and then spend it all getting blitzed and singing about killing Brits'. They're not a nation, they're an ex-wife.

Of course, now they're a roaring Celtic Tiger, which is why they need all those subsidies from the EU. Or something. Mind you, it must be hard to build an economy when the only thing you've ever invented is the car bomb.

Truly, the Irish are the Palestinians of the West. Except this: St Patrick was a Roman from Britain. Say what you like about the Palis, but even they don't have the chutzpah to build a key part of their national identity around an Israeli.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

It's 1588 All Over Again

At last the L3 have woken up to the fact that there exists a large body of religious loons who wish to overturn our democratic traditions and turn this country into a theocratic madhouse. It took a while but now the Left has come out against…. Catholics ? It's an outside shot, but what with these new revelations about the dangers of Papery and the Left's recent discovery that the IRA are scum, I'm off to William Hill to see what odds they'll give me against the next Labour leader being Ian Paisley.

What it's all about, of course, is abortion. Princess Tony's contribution to the debate has been to say that he 'does not believe abortion should be an election issue, arguing it is a matter for individual conscience. ' The word 'chutzpah' is somehow inadequate to describe the Great Regulator talking about the importance of individual choice. In fact, even Blair doesn't believe in that much choice - he wants it to be legal to kill foetuses, but not to hunt them with dogs. You might think foetuses aren't human, but they're a lot closer than little red doggies.

Maybe the Catholics should claim all abortionists are 'toffs' ?

Still, if Blair eulogising about individual choice is bad enough, what of Howard claiming to have moral qualms about abortion ? 'Moral qualms' ? Probably just indigestion. Still, there's more than enough humbuggery to go round. Of all papers, it's this one that let's the cat out of the bag, revealing that evil maniac Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor made his comments at a press conference to reveal the Church's 'traditional pre-election letter'. Yep, theophobes - a whole laundry list of theocratic nonsense just ready to fisk, yet you need to dig deep even to find that the letter exists. How come no one perceives the first stirrings of theocracy in the rest of these demands ? Need you ask. If they've kept to form the letter will consist of a trainwreck collection of dhimmitude, open borders nonsense, welfare white elephants and the whole rest of the L3 agenda hidden under a half millimetre layer of scripture [and in fact the omens aren't good - the Guardian calls the letter 'scrupulously neutral '].

But don't let the hypocrisy of the Left in this particular case blind us to their more general hypocrisy. The most prominent parliamentary pro-lifer right now is Ann Widdicombe, a Kent Conservative, but before that it was David Alton, Lib Dem from Liverpool. There's no stereotype for a pro-lifer - the only common factor is that these people have for whatever reason - religious, scientific or the voices in their head - decided that abortion is murder. It is the Left that has sought to politicise abortion, rebranding a sad and nasty medical procedure into some kind of bizarre fusion of the storming of the Bastille, the Red October tractor factory and the suffragettes.

It is precisely because abortion is a moral matter that the Church is justified in speaking out - certainly more so than on matters such as the taxation of dividend income. For the same reason, it is asinine for Blair (or anyone else) to claim that abortion is simply a matter of individual conscience. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is where somebody kills someone else. For anyone except uber-Libertarians to claim that the State has no compelling interest in preventing murder is surely absurd, yet this is what the Left - the speech-code, passive smoking, five-a-day co-ordinated Left - claims.

In a stunning proof of the stopped-clock hypothesis, Michael Howard stumbled onto the key question: where in the long haul from fertilized ovum to birth does the foetus become a baby ? This is a serious question and it deserves better than the Left's crude attempts to close down the debate, as so perfectly exemplified by this comment from Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association,:

What is the benefit to women, or to the potential child, of forcing a woman to have a baby?
No wonder the Left is so keen on more sex education.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Last To The Party Again

I know it's had a lot of coverage in the Blogosphere, but just in case anyone has been on the Moon recently, here's news of the latest hole down which the Eurotrash are throwing our cash: the European Parliament has set up a unit to "detect lies, errors and other types of misleading reporting on the EU constitution in the European media". That's the European media, as opposed to the European Parliament, where lying about the EU is strongly encouraged. Anyway, for the record (and because I can't get the link to work), here're the e-mail addresses for the whiny ones:

Gérard LAPRAT (Former Sec-Gen of the Communists in the EP)
Joëlle FISS
Ralph PINE
Bertrand PELTIER
Dominique ROBERT

That Was Quick

I told you the Liberal-infested social services would put the Army in the shade over Deepcut - but even I thought it would take more than 24 hours to do it. Apparently, the Left has a downer on the Green Machine, but cannibalism is just another life-style option. Here's the key point:

Bryan was sent to a secure hospital after admitting beating 20-year-old shop assistant Nisha Sheth to death with a hammer as she worked in her family's clothes shop in Chelsea, south-west London, in 1993.

But he was freed in 2001 after applying to a health review tribunal.

Like, hello ? BNFL release a smoke alarm's worth of rads into the Irish Sea and the Left is in favour of bringing back public execution, but the beardey-weirdies release a cannibal onto our streets and suddenly we're in for a rousing chorus of 'That's Life!'. Where's their corporate manslaughter now ?

History is full of tragedies which happen when a series of unrelated and unlikely happenings all come together at once. This isn't one of them. At every stage in this fiasco a common theme emerges: Liberalism.

Take, for example, the whole question of the mental health tribunal system. Let's not call the experts useless. On the contrary, in creating a mythology, a mix of Liberal posturing and Voodoo science, that proved to be of no use whatsoever in, uh, actually making predictions (pretty much the point of real science) the experts were positively harmful. If you randomly picked a guy off the number 32 bus he wouldn't have done as badly as the supposed experts. It takes a peculiar mix of bad science and bad politics to reach the point where releasing a proven killer seems like a good idea.

But that's the thing: the self-same people who get to decide if Mr S O Ciopath is cured are the ones whose careers depend on pushing the idea that all a whackjob really needs is the cerebral equivalent of an oil change and suddenly he's Joe Normal (but Conservatives are still nuts)! It's like staffing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence with homeopaths - what do you think they're going to say ? Yet, what is Liberalism if not exactly this kind of deference to unaccountable, soi dissant experts combined with contempt for Joe Public ?

Or consider the initial sentence. Here we have a bloke guilty of a senseless murder yet first the Liberals declare him insane, meaning he doesn't go to prison, then they declare him sane, meaning he's out on the streets after only eight years. Whatever the Left had to do to get a dangerous predator off the hook, they did it. This is what happens when your highest moral aim is non-judgementalism - you can't spot absolute evil even when it's looking you in the gouged-out eye.

Most characteristic of all though, is the Liberals Gold Star ability to learn from their mistakes:

The prosecution accepted not guilty pleas to murder charges because of the weight of psychiatric evidence.
Haven't we heard that somewhere before ?

Still, it's not all bad news:

He went on to kill Richard Loudwell, 59, at Broadmoor special hospita ….who had admitted the manslaughter of 89-year-old Joan Smyth at her home in Rainham, Kent, in December 2002.
Now that's rehabilitation. I recommend group therapy with Ian Huntley.


In the comments Steve points to this post, which examines the Left's position on crime from an Objectivist persepective. I, myself, prefer the Gramscian (or anti-Gramscian ?) perspective, but it does raise interesting points and, again, recognises the central fact that Liberals are so bad at fighting crime in large part because they don't actually see it as crime.

Monday, March 14, 2005

Social Workers Could Really Show The Army How To Neglect Its Duty Of Care

Having slagged off the Army below, let me make amends by offering my expert advice on how to get out of their Deepcut hole: hire some social workers. After all, sexual abuse, violence and avoidable deaths are par for the course for the average social services department, yet they get away with it alright. While the Army is searching for the right candidates, here's some things they could learn from the Beardy-Weirdies right now.

Claim That Your Complete Incompetence Means You Need More Resources: no one knows why Liberals interpret utter failure as grounds for more of the same, but they surely do.

Say That It Was A Failure Of Procedures Not People: Needless to say, some pesky RWDB will insist on asking whose job it is to execute the procedures if not people, but they should be encouraged. Any suggestion of personal responsibility will repel the Left so much they'll naturally rally to your cause.

Demand A Multiagency Approach: This is Liberalese for 'blame the Filth', so naturally they'll go for it.

Claim You're Victims Of A Tabloid Conspiracy: The merest suggestion that the Sun is opposed to abuse of recruits will be enough to bring 40% of L3 to your side.

State That You Can't Discuss Individual Cases: Since every case is, by definition, an individual case this means you can float around issuing abstract bromides rather than deal with embarrassing facts.

But most of all:

Remember to claim that "lessons were learned".

Singapore, 2005

With the Deepcut reporting coming out, the top brass obviously felt the need to get a few L3 on-side. Now that's top-class dhimmitude!

The head of the UK Armed Forces made a direct appeal to the British Islamic community to encourage more Muslims to join up.
But plenty of Muslims have already joined up to fight in the War - true, they've joined the other side, but hey - let's not be narrow-minded here.

The Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Walker, promised "fulfilling careers and high-quality training" for recruits.
Yep - that's the Army alright. Training and fulfilment - kind of like going to Uni but with a slightly more restrictive dress code.

That's the good part. It gets worse - a lot worse.

Addressing leading members of the Muslim community, he paid tribute to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) for promoting tolerance and understanding of different cultures in Britain.
Generic point: how do you get to be a leading member of a [PC victim community d'jour] ? More specifically, who says that the MCB speaks for Muslims ? Did they hold an election or what ? Instinct tells me that the type of Muslim who will fight for Britain is the type of person least likely to show fealty towards the thugs'n'thools at the MCB. Incidentally, just what other cultures has the MCB promoted tolerance of ? There's supermodels less self-centred than these pondlife.

Anyway, what happened to the consitutional safeguard that soldiers don't engage in politics ? Expressing support for the MCB is hardly a dry, technical matter. Take, for example, this:

Speaking at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Regent's Park, central London, he said: "I would like to pay tribute to the MCB's invaluable work to promote better community relations and increase knowledge and understanding of the Muslim faith within British society.

"The MCB has made a real and lasting contribution to the creation of a just and tolerant society.
Say what ? True, as long as we have the MCB, we'll never run short of taqqiya, but creating a tolerant society ? Has this bloke been drinking the Kool Aid or just chopper fuel ? This is just garbage - wrong on any number of levels, and it's a disgrace that any professional soldier could say it. More than that though, it's an outrageous offence against our system of government. Other nations may welcome generals speaking up in favour of this policy or that, but not round here. That Britain's top serviceman has chosen to align himself with the L3 is a perfect example of Blairism's only true achievement - its ability to corrupt everything.

Time was when servicemen - even Hostilities Only soldiers, yanked out of Civey St and sent in harms way - would find it in themselves to resist weeks of torture by the Gestapo. Now, the mere threat of a nasty article in the Guardian is enough for them to throw the towel in.

How did things get this bad ? Here's a clue:

"I would also like to emphasise my personal commitment to creating Armed Forces which reflect more fully the religious, cultural and ethnic diversity of the society we serve.
Yes, that's exactly what it's all about. Our Armed Services are a laboratory for L3 social engineering. It's the Liberals attempts to have an Army that works as well as our education system. Why bother to take it all seriously ?

Friday, March 11, 2005

No Representation Without Taxation

Yes, there are downsides to the life of the Liberal - bad hygiene and having to associate with other Liberals being just two of them, still there is one great compensation. While the average Conservative can predict in advance 90% of what the day holds, for the Liberal every dawn is a journey into the unknown. Take recent events in Ulster - the Left has been shocked - shocked! - to find that Sinn Fein/IRA are a bunch of murdering scum.

Who was hiding that from the Left ?

Not to blow our own collective trumpet but some of us on the Right have been saying all this for years and all we got was called racists. Still, I have my suspicions. Liberals were cool with the IRA killing cops, soldiers, Protestants, Christmas shoppers and the like, but now a member of the underclass (aka socialism's core support) has been whacked, we're supposed to take their pity party seriously ?

Needless to say, these folks have been all over it. All of which leads onto me pointing out this post - the perfect riposte to those maroons who think just because a mugger really, really, wants your wallet means you should split the cash in it with him.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

When Idiots Collide!

Personally, I believe the hypothesis that we're living through an era of moronic convergence.. Still,. that's not to say the new age won't come into being without a few labour pains.

Apparently, being Norwegian PM is kind of a non-job, hence she has plenty of free time to deal with the real evils of the world, such as the poor representation of women in furniture assembly instructions. Yep, ol' Kjell Magne Bondevik is teed off because there's no girlies in the assembly instructions from IKEA. Apparently, women across the world are having their lives blighted by the absence of desk-building role models leading to...well, who knows ? As if feminists ever need a reason to whine.

So that's Kjell Magne Bondevik, toast of the whiny, fat hag demographic…or at least she would be, except IKEA blame it all on a certain murder zombie cult. Apparently, Allah left very specific instructions that the female of the species was not to feature in any instructions issued by Swedish furniture stores.

So what's a L3 to do ? On the one hand, there's the opportunity to join with the femiloons in another epic decent into victimhood, on the other there's the chance to indulge in some full-on dhimmitude. Sounds like a Jewish conspiracy to me.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The Acme Of Religion

Scott passes on some good news. You know those Islamic gangsters plaguing our cities ? Well, you'll never guess what, but they aren't practising true Islam.

Hey, is it just me or do anyone else start to suspect the claims that Islam has a billion drones world-wide when every time we hear about an actual Islamoid he turns out not to be practising true Islam ? Or is practising true Islam kind of like Wile E Coyote catching the roadrunner, something that can never actually happen ?

Still, the article does include a fabulous example of that famous Islamic thought:

Toaha Qureshi, who chairs the Lambeth Muslim Forum and runs a multicultural youth project in Stockwell, south London, was aware of local gangs "camouflaging themselves in the banner of Islam" and feared they would try to infiltrate mosques to corrupt young Muslims. He said people wishing to convert to Islam should be questioned about their motivation and undergo rigorous tests. Criminals should not be tolerated.
Like, OK, so there're not Muslims then. Except the next paragraph says this:

"Since 9/11 Muslims are under tremendous pressure. Young people are disaffected and it is up to the statutory agencies and community leaders to divert them into worthwhile employment and projects," he said.
So the criminals are not Muslims but nevertheless their crimes prove that us Dhimmis aren't paying enough Danegeld to the Dar El Islam. Gosh, with great thinkers like that I can't see how they keep getting pounded into the ground by a country with about the same population and area as Greater London.

Sunday, March 06, 2005

The Foxhunting Bill Of London SW1

There are a least a hundred reasons why Tessa Jowells comparison of the BBC to the NHS is insane, but the most obvious has to be this: at least Conservatives can get treated by the NHS. As far as the BBC goes, who'd be surprised to find they'd changed their motto to 'Up Yours, Conservatives!'. Wait - they've already done the next best thing.

That's the bias right there. The BBC can't even pretend that this is anything other than a calculated insult to Conservatives, together with no little triumphalism, a way to remind us that they've got away with it for another ten years (here's hoping not).

But what does it say about the BBC, or indeed the Left in general ? Fearon doesn't represent any particular philosophy, he has no insights to offer, not even Tom Paulin can claim he has any worth outside his worthlessness - his sole value is that he allows the BBC to stick it to Conservatives. That's what passes for deep thought on the Left these days - soaking the taxpayer, flicking v-signs at Conservatives and hailing their own heroism in doing so. Look at Labour's election campaign for proof of that.

This is where the Left is these days. They've been on the wrong side of every issue for the last thirty years so they've turned to cultural nihilism. They might not be right about anything but YOU SUCK!.

One Market You Can Rig

Personally, I've understood the huge downer some folks have on supermarkets, but still - if we do ever need to hobble Asda and the like, I have the perfect method: let the Department for Education run them. For proof of how far outside the normal confines of human intercourse the educrats have gone, consider the saga of the latest batch of lipstick on the pig:

Ms Kelly told the Secondary Heads Association's annual conference it was schools' duty to be "ever more responsive" to communities. …

During her speech, in Brighton, Ms Kelly, reiterated her calls for schools to give parents more feedback on their children's progress and annual governors' meetings with parents. …

The speech comes a day after the government said it wanted more "tailored" learning programmes for children of all levels, including some "one-to-one" tuition.
This sounds like the educational equivalent of mom, God and apple pie, right ?

Ahuh…not quite:

Education Secretary Ruth Kelly has been accused of "patronising" head teachers by asking them to work with parents and government to raise standards.
"Raising standards" ? Them's fighting words round here. Doubtless, the chance to let loose their inner chimpanzee helped the delegates blow off steam between debates over lack of discipline in schools.

Really, it's hard to tell which is worse - the asinine views of these people or the fact they think that they can treat the elected representatives of the people as some kind of unwanted house guests. Then again, Nu Labour hardly deserve respect. Look at their idea of a bold reform: small group tuition. Gosh, Ruth, do you think you're going a bit too far ? It's kind of devil may care, isn't it ?

You're tempted to wish the government would show some steel in dealing with these people, but we're only talking about children rather than something really important like foxes. Besides, Nu Lab might be run by scumbag lawyers (redundancy!) but there's no question who makes up the bulk of the Party.

That's the frustration of it all. The Conservatives are looking for two things above all else: a way to differentiate themselves from Nu Lab and a way to prove they really care about public services. Well, here's a public service that's a national scandal, yet Labour dare not touch it. So where's the Conservative Party ? But no, such reforms as are proposed are strictly blathersgate.

What are they worried about anyway ? Damaging their powerbase amongst the teachers ? Please! In the 2001 election the Conservatives lost half their support amongst teachers when he got run over on the way to the polling station. On the other hand, there is this. Let's allow for deadbeat dads and factor out aunts, uncles, grandparents and the like - we're still talking about 100 000 voters per year being told 'well, we know you had big hopes for Michael, but we've got union members to protect - oh yeah, keep paying the taxes'.

Hell, let's not be too cold blooded about this. We're talking 70 000 kids per year finding themselves shunted into the sidings before they've hardly started. Just to put that in context, we're talking the same number as Bomber Command suffered casualties in the whole of the Second World War, except instead of paying the price of beating Hitler, we're paying the price of offering jobs for life to deadbeats. Can we be sure that the next Einstein or the next Bill Gates isn't amongst them ? Hardly.

It occurs to me that if Asda, Tesco and the rest had an arrangement similar to that covering school admissions, the Competition Commission would be at Defcon One. But the self-same people who genuinely believe that the City, book publishing, mobile phones and washing powder markets are all secretly run by cartels, are nevertheless A-OK with the idea of fixing the market for schools so that even Hell St Comp can stay in business. Is education more or less important than the supply of beans ?

Right now, we have a government that's afraid to take on the teachers, except in the most indirect way, and a teaching profession that approaches every situation with two raised fingers. Hence, the obsession with paperwork, reflecting the fact that nothing less than being cornered like a rat and watched like a hawk will drive the educrats to obey the orders of the democratically-elected government. So screw them. Let the market have them. If Joe Motivated at St Margaret's wants to take 120% of capacity, let him (and pay him accordingly) while as for the radical dudes, well, let's see how much radical posturing these people indulge in with their jobs on the line.

Friday, March 04, 2005

The Mad & The Bad

Amongst the several hundred things the Beeb thinks you oiks shouldn't know about Little Miss Jihad there's the identity of the lawyer who successfully turned round defeat in the lower courts into victory in the High Court. Why so cagey ? Ah yes - it turns out to be our old friend Chezza B, High Priestess of the absurd human rights case.

For all propaganda about Tony Blair 'betraying' Labour - most generated by his own supporters, anxious to reassure Joe Public - Blair has in fact been remarkably ideologically consistent. True, Blair can triangulate with the best of them, but there has always been an underlying logic to his policies, albeit not one he cares to articulate in public. Fortunately, Cherie - lacking both his thespian talent and his ability to dissemble - can't help but give the game away, hence the omerta in the Liberal media regarding her true nature.

At first sight, the fact that that Cherie Booth has thrown her hand in with the headchoppers appears paradoxical, yet that is to misunderstand why Princess Tony joined the War On Terror in the first place. While policy makers in Washington saw the war as a way to drain the swamp, by remaking the sleazy thugocracies of the Middle East into functioning democracies, Blair's objective was almost completely opposite to that. To be sure, Blair opposed the rule of thugs just as much as Bush, but while the President saw the war as an exercise in transferring power to the proverbial man in the street, Blair envisaged the war as a way of transferring power to the UN. Blair, tranzi as ever, sees the Middle East as the perfect theatre for exactly the kind of supranational interventionism that worked so well in Kosovo or Bosnia.

That is sarcasm.

This is the common thread between Cherie the Dhimmi and Blair, Liberator of Basra. Both are essentially collectivists, viewing governmental power as the source rather than the product ,of social progress. Whether it’s the Human Rights Act or the Kyoto protocol, the collective will must prevail against ideas of individual or national sovereignty.

Above all else, the Blairs are Gramscians. They seek to use the power of government to remake society. Hence the obsession with strengthening the role of government - total transformation requires total power. Their alliances with Jihadis and ecoloons are a means to an end. In both cases, they are useful battering rams to be used against the pillars of our society. Cherie not only helped the Jihadis strike a blow against western civilisation, she also helped legitimise the idea that the courts can demand citizens and organisations pay fealty to Liberalism. Ditto, Kyoto is not only a way to slip socialism in via the back door, but also a way to legitimise the idea of world government.

There is one significant difference between the Blairs. Tony Blair is the more messanic of the two, there is a genuine idealism there, a belief that the world really would be a better place for having him run it (just how many things has he taken 'personal charge of' in the last eight years ?). But if Tony Blair is mad not bad, Cherie goes the other way. Tony Blair believes an opponent is just a supporter who hasn't yet had the joy of letting him into their life. Cherie Blair is more ruthless, perfectly fitting the diagnosis offered by someone who, unlike feminist icon Cherie, actually earned her place in No 10:

Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag
Cherie Blair is the true face of the modern Left, yet the Liberal media maintains a blackout on her activities. Doesn't that say something profound about modern Liberalism ?

Thursday, March 03, 2005

The Little Jihadi That Could

Living up to their unofficial motto of 'all the news that's fit to', the Beeb's coverage of the Shabina Begum story has had more holes than the Open Golf Championship. In a glowing testimony to the benefits of the licence fee, you need to go to Biased BBC to get the full story on Little Miss Taliban.

When the Beeb takes time out from producing dramas about paedophile priests and serial killers who recite the 23rd Psalm while dismembering women, to broadcast glowing tributes to a religious zealot, it's usually a sign that they're up to no good.

Not that the Liberals have actual arguments, aside from reminding us approximately 6000 times that the Rosa Parks of Luton is really, really, religious - oh yeah, and accusing everyone in the world of being 'Islamophobic'.

The truth is you don't even need to mention the I-word to see how asinine the Liberal position is. Take the absurdity of citing 'equality' as a reason to specially privilege some worldviews but not others. Consider what the Liberal's sudden outbreak of respect for religion means in the context of abortion. If you think our current abortion laws are wrong because the foetus becomes human far earlier than the original Act allows, then the Left hates you, you pig. But if you think the law needs changing because His Holiness says so, then the Left will argue that your religious belief needs to be respected.

Won't they ?

But what's with this religion anyway ? Will all religious beliefs have to be respected, or will there be some kind of licensing authority, to distinguish between religions which deserve respect and stupid, little cults. I only ask because I'm thinking that if the Satanists get turned down and bring a lawsuit, their opponents could struggle to find a lawyer. Besides, what of the Jedi ? The last census proves they have thousands of adherents - so how many people do they have to decapitate to get a little respect round here ?

Then again, if defining 'religion' is hard, how about distinguishing between religious beliefs and the ordinary, everyday ones that you don't have to respect ? Liberals might want to pretend that this case is a matter of religious freedom, but there's nothing metaphysical about dress sense. No one's talking about making windows into men's souls, just regulating actual behaviour. Or to put it another way, what rules do the Left think Muslims should have to obey ?

Despite the best efforts of the BBC and its fellow travellers to cast this as some sort of victory for a plucky lass fighting for freedom of religion, the reality is anything but. Even fifty years ago the headscarf was virtually unknown amongst Muslim women. The rise of the headscarf reflects its role as a symbol of militant Islam - it is emphatically not a politically-neutral sign of religious faith, which may be why those well-known hotbeds of Islamophobia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran all banned it when it first appeared.

The point is that from the start, allegedly Islamic clothing was used as a way of distinguishing between Islamists and everyone else. Since that time, the ratchet has only gone one way, with the Jibab being merely the latest iteration of hardline Islamism - as perfectly exemplified by Shabina Begum herself and her lawyer's shamelessly undereported statement that she opposed wearing the shalwar khameez (the 'uniform' recognised by Dhimmi High) because Sikhs and Hindus also wear it. And that's the good side of it. Comparisons to the idea of allowing native Britons to attend school in KKK robes fall short on one particular point - even BNP members have never stooped to this sort of thing:

After all, in some giant housing projects surrounding Paris and other French cities, young Muslim women who dress in western clothing are deemed to be fair game, inviting—indeed, asking for—rape by gangs of Muslim youths. In such circumstances, it is impossible to know whether the adoption of Islamic dress by women in western society is ever truly voluntary, and so long as such behavior persists, the presumption must be against it being so.
Indeed. The Jibab is an ideological symbol, and a pretty foul ideology at that. To cite religious freedom as grounds for allowing these people to parade around even the most inappropriate of places - schools certainly count - in full Islamist regalia is to miss the central point that the overt wearing of such paraphernalia is designed to crush freedom, both in the specific sense of intimidating people by their physical presence, and in the more general sense that it is designed to create a legal environment where Muslims are specially privileged, for example by being able to opt out of rules they don't like, while at the same time, their critics are subjected to ever more overt legal harassment. In short, the Court's ruling marks another step on the road to dhimmitude.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005


When I first read today's horrifying headline "SUPREME COURT BANS DEATH PENALTY FOR YOUTHS!" I nearly plotzed.


Like, History, Man

No one goes to Uni without meeting the Pretentious Stoners - people who think that getting high as a kite and babbling about, like, y'know, "if lobsters could sing, what would they sound like ?", is soooooo deep. If you've ever wondered what happens to them when they graduate, I can now reveal that they get jobs drawing up exam syllabuses.

The Historical Association recommends a "complete overhaul" of teaching of the subject at GCSE and A-level.
Much of the curriculum is speculative and unhistorical, its report adds.
In one exam, pupils were asked what ancient Romans would have made of a 19th-Century cartoon about the quality of London's drinking water.
Like, totally. Who hasn't wondered what would've happened if Napoleon had been able to clone himself ? Pretty much everyone actually, but now it's passing as scholarship. So at least we don't need to wonder anymore how rising exam passes can coexist with massive cluelessness.

Don't Mention The War

Read this report from the Beeb and see what's missing. That's our public service broadcaster that is, the people who can't report the theft of Ian Wright's motor without speculating that the thief may have had a racial motivation - but you have to read the Telegraph to find out why we might have had a case of Sudden Exploding Aircraft Syndrome.