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 ?