Outrage D'Jour Du Mois

Baby boomer nostalgia is bad enough at the best of times, but right now the BS meter is redlining. While the sane people think of this year’s big anniversary as the sixtieth anniversary of VE Day, the Worst Generation are busy celebrating thirty years since the fall of Saigon.

Actually, the Left is remarkably more restrained these days than it used to be in celebrating the victory of the humane and progressive forces of North Vietnam. With other people this could be the first stirrings of a sense of shame, but with Liberals this is merely tactical, a recognition that reminding people that they were once on the same side as vicious Communist psychopaths may negatively impact on their inability to help the West lose our modern day war. Hence, the massive overuse of the passive voice in these ‘Nam reminiscences: they’ll tell us Saigon fell, but they’ll never admit it got a mighty push from the Fourth Estate. But now people who wrote articles about how the blundering US forces could never defeat the brave peasants of the Viet Cong are claiming that the Communist victory just somehow happened.

The most enraging reminisces of all come from those journoweasels who stayed in Saigon. They invite us to marvel at their devil-may-care courage in staying in a city about to fall to murderous Marxist savages, well, real courage would have been writing that at the time. But no, these people scribbled nonsense about ‘agarian reformers’ and the like, but now want us to marvel at their courage in spending several minutes in a city occupied by those self-same ‘agrarian reformers’. And never mind the fact that the people of South Viet Nam couldn’t just hop a plane to somewhere civilised when all that reform got too much.

Everything the Left ever said about Viet Nam was a lie. That’s no surprise, what it was about then is what it’s about now: the Left demonstrating its hatred for Western Civilisation, and if that means carrying water for sadistic Marxist vermin or Islamofascist scum, well, that’s the price you have to pay. Take these examples from the Beeb’s notorious (D)HYS:

The Vietnam War should have taught the Americans that they are not invincible and that technology has limits. However it appears that George Bush has not learned from Vietnam and continues to believe that the Iraq situation will improve some day. Unless American and so called "coalition of the willing" troops remove their noses from the business of others more needless lives and money will be wasted.
Jason K Lee, Toronto, Canada

Here are the limits of technology: the US Army was sent in to destroy the Viet Cong, a mission that was achieved – partially thanks to the disastrous Tet offensive – by mid-1968. The Communists were then forced to rely on North Vietnamese regulars. It took four years before they could mount a major offensive, it took the US less than twenty days to bomb it into the ground. The Communists then signed the Paris Accords ending the war until such time as US forces had withdrawn, they’d rebuilt their strength and a Democrat Congress could be relied upon to stab the South Vietnamese in the back. Nevertheless, during the whole war, the US Army lost nearly 60 000 troops – Hanoi admitted a loss of 1.5 million.

But yes – the US should stop flying airliners into buildings. Wait – that didn’t happen.

One thing I'd like to point out is the 'lesson' the Bush regime learned from the Vietnam war: control as much as possible the information coming from the war zone and your own population will not rebel against the war.
Changcho, California, USA

And here is the basic pathology of the Liberal: the era when the American people were dependent for information on a Triopoly, all providing the same commentary from the same Liberal perspective, was a Golden Age of press freedom, as opposed to now, the era of cable, talk radio and the blogosphere. Everyone knows the Milbloggers are all Rove plants.

It is pathetic that my country has learned nothing from the legacy of Korea and Vietnam. For the last half century, the United States has repeatedly violated the sovereign rights of other nations. It is profoundly ironic that a nation founded on the principle that people have a right to choose their own form of government grew to become a nation that denies this right to other nations.
In each of these unjust, unfounded wars, thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, not to mention the steep cost in lives for American soldiers. And, in every case the "threat" has been specious. Vietnam paid a horrible price for American interference. I wish that the world and particularly America had learned from this, but sadly the lessons have been forgotten.
Kate Treatman-Clark, Annapolis, Maryland, US

Never mind Viet Nam – if the modern Left really can’t distinguish between North and South Korea then no wonder they’re in such an intellectual death spiral. Still, if being conquered by an invading force from a neighbouring country counts as choosing your own form of government then it’s hard to see what the Left’s beef is with Operation Iraq Freedom. Then again, words mean different things to Liberals. Take the idea of a specious threat from Communist expansionism – apparently creating mayhem in Africa and South America, as well as enslaving Eastern Europe and China doesn’t count – mind you, the Left never set much store by what happens ’out there’ anyway. If there’s no anti-Western angle they don’t want to know. That’s why the same journalists who went into a feeding frenzy about My Lai just don’t care about this:

The Vietnam War is always in my mind even. I was little during the war but that war cost me my father. The Vietcong put him in the so-called concentration camp and he never returned home after that. He was killed in that camp due to the lack of medicine, sanitary and human rights. I cannot forgive the Vietnamese communists for taking my father away from me and my family. Who give the Vietcong that right?
Lan, Los Angeles, USA

Tsk! As if Liberals have got time to worry about some slitty-eyed weirdos: Stop being so selfish, we’re busy trying to bring down AmeriKKKa here.

If Only Freud Was Still Alive...

Well, I did say before my little trip that the Left would try the old debate/hate trick, and bang on cue, the Rottweiler Puppy reports the latest iteration on the Charlotte Wyatt case:

The judge said relations between the parents - who have two other children, Daniel, two, and David, six months - and St Mary's, were fragile.
Hospital staff were stressed by the enormity of Charlotte's plight and, as they saw it, the "volatility" of her parents.

There’s an important point here. Liberal’s obsession with judicial supremacy is predicated on the idea that judges aren’t just mere technicians of the Law. No way, siree – not only do they have a fine knowledge of the Offences Against The Person Act (1886) but they’re also intellectual giants as well as arbiters of morality and the common good. To listen to the L3, you can’t hardly not want to assign judges the role of super-legislators and take law-making out of the hands of the Great Unwashed (y’know, people like neurosurgeons, pilots, entrepreneurs, scientists and other rabble).

Well, now: here we have one of these ubermen, and he seemed baffled by the existence of hostility between parents and the people trying to kill their daughter. Honestly, you could throw playing cards off the roof of the Anfield Kop and the guy who picked up the seven of hearts would have more clue than this (although, admittedly, he wouldn’t be as well informed about the provisions of the Farming Act of 1934).

Speaking personally, I’m not sure what I think about euthanasia. I can certainly see a case for the whole ‘death with dignity’ thing, but my blood runs cold when I see something like this:

He [Hedley] pointed out the hospital did not have the necessary intensive care facilities and, if none were available at Southampton, a countrywide search would have to be conducted. Charlotte, under sedation and being ventilated, would become "more an object to whom things are done than a child".

Well, ‘scuse me, m’lud, but the determining factor in a euthanasia case is the state of the patient not the NHS. Or is he really saying that he would be less minded to kill if there were more NHS hospitals in Southampton ? What if all the hospitals in Hampshire were swallowed up by the Earth ? Would he recommend we let diabetics die with dignity ? Never mind talk of treating Charlotte as an object, he’s treating her more as an unwelcome burden, selfishly gobbling up NHS resources. The cow! In his statement Hedley perfectly sums up the problem with socialist health care - indeed with socialism in general – patients get what it is in the interest of the State to provide, not what they need.

Of course, this cuts both ways – if you have done something with your life which the Left can really get behind, why, they’ll strip mine whole onion fields for you.

Thought On God, Man And Judges

MH detects a note, nay, even a whole symphony, of humbuggery from those Metropolitan Liberals professing to be shocked - shocked! - that Blair is a liar and took the country into war. These people were onboard when Blair smeared a 92 year old woman whose family had the temerity to complain about lousy treatment from the NHS. They backed him launching a war to hand over part of someone else's country to Islamic fundamentalists (hey, Liberals, any closer to finding those 100 000 dead Kosovans yet ?). But when he went after a murderous dictator, well, that's just going too far.

In a similar vein, he rightly points out one of the most revealing aspects of the media's B16 meltdown - the fact they're absolutely freaked out by the idea of a man who knows his own mind and says what he means. What's his angle with all this religion stuff, anyway ?

Liberals have been outraged over Peter the C's comment that at least B16 has the right enemies. That's far too shallow for our deep thinking members of the Bush=Hitler fraternity. Apparently, you're supposed to consider Liberal objections on their merits rather than consider the fact that they're coming from people who've always hated Christianity anyway. But are we really not supposed to remember that these people have been wrong about every issue since about 1975 ? More to the point, PC is exactly right that just about every L3 face card has been banging away on the ol' Smear-A-Matic since the election of B16 was announced and what's been the result of this Liberal feeding frenzy ? Ah yes.... I thought these people were scrapping the bottom of the barrell with Bush=Hitler, but now it's Pope=Catholic, we have to face facts: it's time we left the Left to die with dignity.

That might sound harsh, but hey - it's the spirit of the age. After all, the Left is still busy trying to bury Charlotte Wyatt. Of course, she was doomed to die last September except she's still alive but now she's totally double-doomed with swords, oakleaves and gold cluster. After all, three separate judges have pronounced her case hopeless. Oops, no: Mr Justice Hedley pronounced sentence of death first time round then he's reviewed his own decision twice and found it to be perfect. Apparently, without the facility of judicial review, the Army would be massacring innocent Iraqis, cops would be filing witness statements in the incinerator and pharmaceutical companies would be marketing cyanide-based products - but you can take this whole independent oversight thing too far.

Interestingly, the Left has chosen this case to showcase its commitment to open government. Laban Tall - who's been on it from the start - passes on the modest scope of the injunction on reporting this case:

A revised Injunction Order has been made in the Family Division of the High Court, dated 27 September 2004, (Mr Justice Hedley) regarding Charlotte Wyatt. The order made is exceptionally wide, prohibiting any reporting, in words or images, that may lead not only to the baby's identification but also to her medical condition, any of her family, where she is being treated, her medical team, or the trusts and hospitals for whom they work. If in any doubt please consult a staff lawyer before publishing.

I'm thinking horse/stable door as far as much of that goes, but as for the rest ? Huh ? The Left professes to be horrified at the prospect of Al-Quaida scumbags being convicted on the basis of secret evidence - well, here's a death sentence and the courts don't want you to know, well, anything really. How on Earth can they justify that ? Is it just me, or is the Left pulling the old debate/hate trick again.

What we are talking about are the actions of State employees at a State-owned hospital. This is certainly more worthy of public interest than the latest twist in the Wayne/Colleen saga, but no - best not to say anything, lest we stir up the crazed mass of Christians. When it comes to the Religion of Peace, the Left sounds just like Monty Python: 'September 11 was a one off, there'll never be another incident like September 11 or Bali. Just a couple of isolated incidents. No reason to let a pair of freak incidents like September 11, Bali and Madrid…Three isolated incident…' But mention Christians and the Left professes to be terrified at the thought of B16's crazed minions rampaging round the country. Respectful though I normally am of Liberal's point of view, I just can't see that a country where a child can be condemned to death on rapidly disintegrating scientific evidence and the say so of a single judge is necessarily at risk of falling under a crazed Christian theocracy.

Then again, the Left never could really understand this Chrisitanity thing anyway. Blimpish goes dumpster diving and reveals an early draft of the Guardian's report on the election of B16.

Return Of The Kremlinologists

Soviet paranoia meant that for most of the time during the Cold War we didn't really know much of what went on behind the Iron Curtain. Hence, the reliance on Kremlinologists, the folks who assured us that the fact that Trud had a front page article praising farmers in Belorus really indicated that the KGB was losing power in the Politburo. In other words, the political equivalent of tealeaf readers. That's what you're stuck with when you're dealing with a government that lies like a rug and a puppet press.

I thought that was all behind us but now, fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, it seems we need our own Kremlinologists to work out what's going on in this country. We get the official line on the War on Terror, the media eats it up with a spoon, then we hear reports like this. This is the perfect barometer of how low British journalism has sunk: from William Howard Russell to Basil Fawlty in 150 years.

It's Evil....But I Love It!

Quote D'Jour

Our future PM details the Prince of the Platinum Bandwith's hysterical reaction to the news that the Pope is a Catholic, which reminds me of the perfect rebutal over at the Animal House. Take it away #190 a.k.a. Aksuperior:

Listen up, Gay Marri... I mean, Andrew Sullivan:

It's a religion, not a democracy. God doesn't focus-group questions of Right and Wrong.

If you don't like it, there are plenty of religions that would be happy to have you. You'll find them long on acceptance but short on liturgy, meaning, and spiritual satisfaction. But at least their version of Jesus gives a big thumbs-up to butt-sex.

There won't be a "civil war." Those who disagree with orthodoxy don't show up to Mass to begin with. What makes you think they're going to show up for theological battles?

Now, let us join together and sing Andrew's favorite hymn, "Our God is a Persuadable God."

Hiding From Men In Wigs

Reading this just makes me more certain than ever that if the folks at Sellafield behaved like our L3 friends in the justice system, the Libs would be demanding they be publicly executed. Plus, the whole of Cumbria would glow in the dark. The self-same people who profess to predict the temperature in 2100, claim to be staggered that rapists carry out rapes. Who'd have thunk it ? If the Left could support it's ecorantings with this level of evidence, Conservatives would be taking the Raleigh to work. Then again, whatever happened to 'corporate manslaughter' ? The Left is prepared to investigate exactly how many turns a locking nut needs, but we're not supposed to ask questions about a court system that lets maniacs out to kill.

But what of the Conservative Party ? Most decisions in politics demand a careful balancing of pros and cons - this isn't one of them. No one can construct an argument for the utility of letting perverts strike again. Stop ten people in the street and nine of them will tell you that the judicial system is out of control, but what does Howard offer ? Really offer, as in concrete policy ? I am a Conservative and I can't think of a single compelling policy the Party offers on crime. We can't avoid the issue any longer. The problem is not a matter of nuance, interpretation or tactics, the problem is that we have a system filled with people who think the prospect of a dangerous criminal striking again takes second place to 'sending the right message', or whatever the insane Liberal phrase d'jour actually is. Public safety takes second place to Gramscian posturing. Until the Conservative Party is prepared to acknowledge that central fact, it cannot be trusted to make Britain safer.

Place Your Bets!

So, in blatant defiance of the demands of the transgendered zoophile community, the Church has decided that the next Pope will be a Catholic. I say Polly Pot for the first Lunar Chiroptera to file an article claiming that no one cares, it's just some old, white, guys and, what's more, those grapes are sour anyway.

Screw Culture

Speaking as someone who's long believed that the average footy hooligan has a better developed moral sense than the typical Metropolitan intellectual, I always knew this was going to happen. Liberals might struggle to win actual debates, but let them write the script, design the stage set and direct the production, and they're unstoppable. Lefty theatre is to political debate what masturbation is to sex.

Then again, what is culture these days except a vast rescue hypothesis for Liberals ? Actual humans might laugh at Liberals, but that's only 'cause they're not cultured, see ? The Yin to the Yang of Liberals declaring themselves to be higher beings is that they seek to justify their claim by self-consiously reactionary posturing. Of course, a real rebel on the London scene would be adopting a pro-Israeli position, but that's what the ordinaries would do. Seeing the redeeming features of a bunch of genocidal loons, now that's takes real insight - and that's the other objection to the whole culture thing. Not only does it allow Liberals to indulge their thuggish elitism, but it also offers them an unjustified sense of achievement merely for adopting the positions of amoral degenerates.

Dhimmis D'Jour: Special Edukaysion Edition

When feminism meets Dhimmitude, the results are always horrible, as perfectly exemplified here with the Beeb's report on UN hand wringing over female education. We have this:

Conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo have done incalculable damage to children's education.

A-huh, so conflict damages educational opportunities. Not sure why this would necessarily be gender-specific, but anyway:

Then, there's this:

In eastern and central Europe, there is cause for concern too.

The introduction of fees for tuition, schoolbooks and uniforms has led to rising drop-out rates - and girls drop out sooner than boys.

Ok, we'll let that jibe at private education pass, and take it as read that fees are bad for education. Still, not seeing a gender angle here.

But what's with this ?

Belarus and Tajikistan will not achieve gender equality, neither will Turkey.

Or this ?

However, it adds that many countries in South Asia, Africa and the Middle East cannot meet the target this year.

Or even this ?

In South Asia, Unicef says, progress has been made, but not enough.
Across the region, 42 million children do not go to school.
Afghanistan and Pakistan have the widest gender gaps.
For Pakistan to have the same number of girls as boys in school by 2015, it would have to increase girls' school attendance by more than 3% each year.

So, run this by me again: Unicef knows that education in central Africa is screwed because of war, while in Europe privatisation is the baddie, even though they can't necessarily prove why it would disproportionatly affect girls. Meanwhile, in the Middle East and South Asia there really is a gender gap, but they can't offer a single explanation as to why that might be. Hmmmmmmm….

I blame Haliburton myself.

That's Just What I Would Have Said....

One of the joys of the Net is finding something that says exactly what you would have said, if you didn't have brains like linguini. Sort of like Tommy G's post here about the pond scum at the CRE: why exactly does anyone listen to these people ?

Weakness Not Strength

There's been plenty of comment about this insanity in the blogosphere. Personally, it cheered me up no end. It's a perfect example of the L3/human chasm. The Left has had near-monopoly control of the institutions for so long that they've lost the ability to construct any argument more complex than Bush=Hitler. Or, to return to the topic at hand, what does it actually mean to call Top Gear 'outdated'. In fact, that charge is the perfect exemplar of how Liberals argue. To a Leftist, merely calling something outdated is a damning phrase, but those of us who don't believe the world was a living Hell prior to 1963 want a bit more. After all, Shakespeare's play are really old, while Harold Pinter's are new, and that kind of raps it up for the benefits of modernity.

The whole of Transport 2000's charge sheet is like that. A collection of shrill, barely coherent, Liberal talking points - and I loved it. Listening to Liberals thrash about trying to construct an argument is always fun, but there was a deeper point here: the complete failure of the Left to sell their garbage to the Great British Public. The Left can only win by lying or by coercion. Or, to put it another way, even a bloke who knows more about pistons than politics can see through their dipstick positions.

As it happens, it looks like the Smirking Menace will be returned with a hundred seat majority on May 5, which is certainly bad news - but I'm still not ready to listen to any talk about the ultimate triumph of Liberalism. Say what you like about Lady Thatcher, but at least she didn't spend the Eighties talking about how much she valued the input of the TUC. OTOH when Blair talks about crime he sounds like Judge Dredd. Ditto, the EU, immigration, tax…..All this after eight years of PC terror.

No doubt about it - the Country can barely survive another five years of Labour, yet there is reason for hope. The whole basis of Nu Lab's Gramscian project is that control of the institutions will allow them to reshape the minds of the public. Well, we've had eight years and the public is still resolutely unconvinced that paedophiles are just misunderstood.

The Peasants Are Revolting

Power up the vacuum chamber and prepare the nano-violin - I wish to play a sad song for all those social workers in blue having to face….no, no, it's too much...having to face public criticism.

Actually, that isn't quite how they put it:

POLICE have received hate mail over jailed schoolteacher Linda Walker.

Officers have been sent dozens of emails and letters, as well as taking phone calls from all over the country, from people angered over how police handled the investigation.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure sending hate mail is an offence. If only they had some contacts in the law enforcement community….But wait: they've magnanimously refused to take action over this alleged hate mail which, amazingly enough, means they don't have to provide any actual evidence of actual hate, rather than merely robust public criticism. Who'd have thunk it ?

Actually, the Filth are just taking their cue from their masters. If Cherie Blair was discovered to eat babies for breakfast, the Left would be out there complaining about sexist coverage. At least I hope it's that: I'd hate to think that we reached such heights of feeding-Rover-at-the-table that our living-dead public servants now genuinely believe that any public criticism whatsoever constitutes an offence.

It's OK though - apparently there's a simple explanation:

Chief Supt Holt said: "There have been a lot of letters, written on the basis of misinformation and inaccuracy.

"What I have tried to do is correct those inaccuracies.

You see, we don't 'ave the knowin' of stuff like what our hardworking, intelligent, public sector class do. We've allowed ourselves to be seduced by the tabloids, the Conservative Party, the freemasons and the International Zionist Conspiracy. Or to put it another way, it turns out we're STOOPID.

Again.

Thing is this slimy, syphilitic, socialist errand boy appears to be well-equipped to talk about misinformation. Take this comment:

Mr Holt pointed out a jury had found Walker guilty and a judge had jailed her - the police had played no part in either decision.

Funnily enough, the Nuremberg defence doesn't apply in the era of 'my resources fell down the stairs, guv' policing. It was the Police who decided to abandon Linda Walker to the thugs, yet somehow found a whole bunch of resources going spare when it was time to target her, just like it was the Police who decided not to caution her and instead call in CPS.

Then again, try this:

Is it okay to go out armed and confront the first people you come across, even if you have no proof they were responsible for discarding litter in your garden?

"While I accept she was frustrated, her actions were not proportionate. It could have been anybody's children out on the street."

Children ????? Since when has 18 years old been considered childhood ? Oh right, yeah - since when it was useful to blood-sucking Liberal parasites trying to play the victim card. Contrary to what this conniving piece of socialist slime is trying to claim, the two state-appointed victims were emphatically not 'anybody'. They were experienced criminals - if Linda Walker can choose two people, completely at random, who just happen to be serial offenders, she shouldn't be being persecuted by the Police, she should be running them.

Then there's this:

Even if people had damaged her car, it can never be a proportionate response to take a loaded firearm out onto the streets.

Well, I don't know Officer Suckweasel, let's wait until that actually happens. Right now, we're talking about a woman who took an air pistol onto the street. I mean, I know promotion is based on politics these days, but these Leftist tools could at least try and pass themselves off as real Police officers. While an air weapon is considered as if it was a firearm if used in the commission of an offence, that doesn't actually make it a firearm, anymore than putting a lead on your cat makes him a dog. The law clearly distinguishes between firearms and air weapons (and shotguns too, actually). This isn't a mere technicality either - real pistols typically have 100-200x the hitting power of an air pistol. Or to put it another way - legally, technically, morally it is a nonsense to suggest that Linda Walker was 'armed with a firearm'.

This kind of legalistic chicanery is SOP for pols, but it does kind of sink the Police's posturing as disinterested upholders of the Law. They aren't just 'doing their job', they're enthusiastically trying to shred their opponent's reputations. But don’t no one criticise them. That'd be Hate Speech, doncha'know ?

The BBC: Stupid Or Sinister ? Discuss.

Bush Creates Loyal Reserve

The US has sworn in commanders of a new military reserve which President Bush says is meant to deter terrorism.

Two hundred thousand reservists paraded before Mr Bush at the Pentagon.
The new formation, which the president wants to become a twenty million-strong force in the near future, will be directly under his command.

The move comes amid growing fears of terorism.

The parade marked the first part of a day of events marking the anniversary of a failed attempt to assassinate the President's father in 1991.

Now, does anybody on this entire planet think the BBC would report such an event so blandly ? If this really happened they'd be going ape with the Hitler analogies - rightly so, for once. This is exactly what Hitler did when he created the SS as a seperate force loyal only to him. But no, not this time. Take the headline here: 'Chavez creates new loyal reserve'. Say what ? If ever there was a sentence that called out for quotes, it's this one. Loyal to what or who exactly ? The whole article reads like something from a parallel universe where it's normal for heads of state to set up their own private army. Far be it from me to complain about a Beeb article lacking editorial comment, but this one lacks any context. No quotes from opposition leaders, no hints as to whether it's constitutional for the Venezualan President to set up his own force, no hint even that he is a communist dictator.

At least we now know what it takes to make the Beeb report a story straight - it just has to be one that's potentially revealing about a Liberal pin-up

Balanced BBC

Auntie has revealed the guest list for the This Week in the run-up to the elction and it's a lu-lu.

Guests lined up for This Week's election programmes include impressionists Rory Bremner and Alistair McGowan, historian David Starkey and comedian Rich Hall.

Leading brain researcher Susan Greenfield, novelist Fay Weldon and ex-newspaper editor Rose Boycott are also due to appear in the show.

Well, I think we can safely say Rory Bremner is on the Left. I'll give McGowan a pass, since I have no idea about his views. David Starkey is apparently a Conservative - the type who hopes Ann Widdicombe falls under a bus, like so many Conservatives. Rich Hall, meanwhile, is very definitly Grade A Moonbat.

Not only is Susan Greenfield an Oxbridge academic, in every sense of the phrase, she has spoken at Labour conferences and been a guest at Number Ten several times. Fay Weldon is a pin-up girl of whiny female victimhood. Rosie Boycott used to edit The Independent - need I say more ?

Or to put it another way, out of seven guests mentioned, six are Liberal to some extent or other, while not one can be described as a full-on Conservative. Add in the fact that the regular guests are Lefty Labour MP Diane Abbot and Lefty Conservative MP Michael Portillo and the question has to be raised: wouldn't it save a lot of money if the Beeb just spent thirty minutes showing the testcard with the phrase 'Up Yours Tories' on it ?

Liberals Seek Evil Genius Behind Christianity

To steal from Ann Coulter yet again, at least when Liberals write about heroin addicts or gay bathhouses they know what they're talking about, but religion ? Doesn't ring a bell, dude.

All of which brings me onto this. NS rightly reports on the train wreck knowledge of economics on display here, but the deeper question is this: what's this garbage doing in a religion textbook anyway ? Never mind the L3 ranting about creeping theocracy, it's religion that can't get away from politics. 'Jesus, loaves, fishes, lazarus, whatever...right, now let's tak about Chimpy McHitler killing Iraqi babies'. BLUUUURGH!

It's the perfect sign of Liberalism's complete inability to comprehend religion that they really think the basis of Christianity is support for higher taxes. In a perfect example of the exception proving the rule, the only religion that gets any respect from the Left is the one that really does have a full load of ideological baggage. Rules on which hand to eat with the Left understands, but that whole thing about 'the body of Christ' - forget it. Hence the L3 confusion over JP II. They couldn't handle a man who espoused some positions that were judged left-wing and some that were right-wing. Where did he get his ideas from ?

Quote D'Jour

John Hawkins on modern art:

Usually, when someone is asked to explain this sort of garbage, they throw on their art poseur hat and start sounding like they learned how to converse with other human beings by watching "The Matrix Revolutions."

Auntie Turning Tricks

Say what you like about the BBC - they can always find new ways to appall. The Beeb has a new advertiser on BBC World: Iran. Strangely, some are unconvinced by the Islamonazis cover story that they're trying to attract tourists.

RP calls it perfectly - this is an obvious attempt to pump out Ismlamofascist propaganda and influence the Beeb's line (final confirmation that the mullahs are nuts - they think they need to bribe the BBC to get it to take an anti-western line). I believe the journalistic cliche that applies is 'I don't mind my reporters ******* the elephants, but if they do, they're not covering the circus'. I've long been convinced that the BBC's preferred mode of recruitment is to send someone to stubble around Oxford colleges asking the students if they've ever thought of a career in broadcasting. But no matter how sketchy your knowledge of journalism is, this deal should raise some ethical questions, but, no. The BBC, ever anxious to detect Tory sleaze and conflicts of interest in industry, can't see anything wrong in accepting brown envelopes from one of the world's worst regimes. Just some background to bear in mind when considering the Beeb's hand-wringing over Tesco's profits.

Liberal Complains Election Is Being Politicised

Labour has been taking a hammering in the polls over their 'Hello Osama' immigration policy, so naturally they've released a serious of proposals to reform the immigration service, close loopholes and expedite the repatriation of bogus asylum seekers.

Just kidding.

What they've actually done is what they always do: engage in some race-baiting. Need you ask who's the Left's bagman is ? Yep - Trevor Phillips, head of the completely non-political Commission for Racial Equality.

Armani Trev is worried about….. well, here he is:

Britain's party leaders have been warned against inciting racial tensions during the election campaign.
The head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, told the Times politicians needed to "reduce the temperature" on political debates.
His comments follow reports around the country of racist violence, including attacks on traveller sites.

So, like, can we have some, actual, y'know, examples ?

Apparently not:

"I can't give you survey evidence but we know what's happening in schools. We know what's happening in factories and so on," he told the newspaper.

No wonder Armani Boy is always banging on about gypsies - he appears to have based his schtick on Gypsy Rose Lee: 'I see a tall, dark stranger….he's being beaten to death by a gang of crazed skinheads, all quoting Michael Howard…. no, I can't give you his name….or location….or a date…but it's really, really serious'.

Honestly - the bloke walking up and down the street claiming 'The End Is Nigh' has more specifics than this.

He said political parties needed to realise the effect their words may be having on the general public, and "ensure debate remains rational".

"What they've all got to understand is what they intend and what they think they are saying is not necessarily what other people are hearing," he said.

See ? If you disagree with Armani Trev, you're not rational. Well, it makes a change from calling Conservatives STOOPID. After all, we don't claim to be intellectuals, but we're not STOOPID enough to fall for that second line. The Liberal:English translation runs something like 'Despite employing the services of the nation's best quote miners, we haven't been able to identify so much as single objectionable statement from the caretaker at Huddersfield Conservative Club, so I'll guess we'll have to resort to sub-tabloid innuendo and voodoo politics'.

As it happens, there have been examples of 'racist violence, intimidation and mob rule' before. Take events in Aston, for example. What does Armani Trev think of that ? In fact, we have already seen mob violence in this campaign. Where is The Trev ? Come to think of it, we need to ask Trev if this kind of violence is made more or less likely by a Lib Dem candidate claiming there's a conspiracy ' to deprive Parliament of a Muslim MP'.

Equally, how about Trev's Brother-In-Blather, David Lammy and his none-too-subtle hints at mob violence. No need for any translation there. How does Trev feel about that ?

Then again, what are we to make of this kind of thing:

Most liberal-minded folk would like to think that since they are not hostile to people of a different race, racism is a disease of the uneducated, unenlightened and socially backward — football hooligans, British National Party supporters, policemen. You could call this the Bad Guy Theory.

Surely, Trev would acknowledge that this kind of mindless abuse of law enforcement officials can also be seen as inciting violence. Perhaps we need to silence that author too, mmmmm ?

All The **** That's Fit To Print

More insight into the news values that dominate our elephantine state broadcaster. Sectarianism in Scottish football is apparently news to the Beeb, but a mob attack on a Jewish memorial service in which elderly veterans are struck by missiles ? Puuulease! Dogs bites man, apparently.

It's not even as if they don't know where Bethnal Green is. They manage a distinctly tongue-in-bum report from a debate between Oona King and the Lion of Halabja[Sample exert: The slightly intimidating mood was not helped by the tieless Mr Galloway standing in the doorway furiously chewing gum, looking for all the world as if he was about to go 12 rounds with Lennox Lewis. Miss King swept past him without making eye contact, and settled into her seat, attempting to appear serene and composed.] Yet, a near-riot by a bunch of ROPers isn't news. Anyone think that if the attack was by BNP supporters we wouldn't be hearing about it 24-7 ?

For that matter, given that Conservative critics of immigration are apparently responsible for every racist attack in history, how should we judge the Lib Dem candidates comments that 'the Labour and Respect candidates of conspiring to deprive Parliament of a Muslim MP'. Pretty inflammatory stuff, muh ?

But no. An anit-Semitic mob disrupts a memorial service and the Beeb doesn't want to know. But don't call them Dhimmis.

Bored Already

Who the Hell is it who says to themselves 'I've never voted for the Treason Party before, but now I've seen Chatshow Charlie visit a kitten hospital in Barnsley, I just have to vote Lib Dem' ?

See, that's my problem with elections right there. Sure, most of the population isn't really sure who Michael Howard is, but someone please tell me that he's not going to pick up votes from pretending to drink a pint in the Rover's Return. Have we really sunk that low ?

Anyway, all of this is by way of praising these guys. Yes, as the results make clear, the place should be flattened, prefrably with management still inside it, but that's no reason why the worker bees should have to take time out to make nicee withe a bunch of flatuant baboons wearing rosettes. Why don't more people do this ?

Anyway, who cares ? It's not like we can't guess what's going to happen.

Oliver Twist Vs Del Boy

Interesting post from PC DC, but look at the dogfight in the comments: blasphemy for the modern Left is people people slagging Sue, Grabbit and Runne. They say there are three types of people in the world: them that make it happen, them that watch it happen and them that wonder what the Hell happened. I'm in Group C as far as all this goes. When exactly did the People's Party turf out the horny handed sons of toil in favour of BMW driving legal pondscum ? Whatever, but the folks like Frank Field and Peter Kilfoyle are fighting a losing battle: it's Cherie's party now.

So, you can understand that I was none too shocked to read about this. If Joe Public has started to despise the modern Left, it may well be because he understands that the feeling is mutual. Zell Miller's verdict on the Democrats now seems strangely appropriate to Nu Lab:

Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said 'I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill clad, ill nourished.' Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, 'I see one third of a nation and it can go to hell.'

The Pub Philosopher gives an example of this attitude and how it affects The Issue That Dare Not Speak Its Name. My only complaint is that he's way too nice to Ben and Chloe - they're not simply ignorant of the problems of the working class, they positively revel in their immunity from them. It's not just immigration: there's crime, education, health care and a whole raft of other areas of public policy where Liberals proudly proclaim their support for insane polices while flaunting their ability to exempt themselves from the consequences. Just like millionaire celeb who takes time out to inform us that he could easily pay more taxes [message: look how rich I am!], Liberals who propose, say, a complete ban on school expulsions are really just boasting that their kids go to such nice schools that there's no one there to expel anyway. Und so weiter...

Consider the differing ways two social problems are treated by the Left. We often hear about mobs being stirred up by mobile phone masts, or protestors demonstrating against paedophiles in their town. Oops, no - it’s the other way round. Demonstrate against Vodaphone sticking a mast up next door and you're an activist, demonstrate against a convicted child killer moving next door and you're a crazed vigilante. Somebody remind me again: which threat has claimed hundreds of lives, and which is backed up solely by a handful of nutballs tormenting rats.

This is not just an arid matter of terminology. Phone companies need planning permission before they can put a mast up, with all that that implies in terms of transparency. Meanwhile, the State will bend over backwards to prevent you finding out that the bloke next door has eighty convictions for child abuse. Hey - whatever you thought about the News of the World's name & shame campaign, they at least had some kind of point, while the Liberal media response was to avoid the issue entirely in favour of branding the protestors as chavs. This is how much Liberalism is dependent on sneering - they'll even line up with perverts if it means they can unload on Joe Sixpack.

We hear a lot about what Lady T did to the working class - and, for sure, no one's claiming that mass unemployment is a good thing, but what of the flip side of that ? Not for nothing did David Jason's character have the catch-phrase 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'. That expressed a great truth about Thatcherism, it introduced working people to a whole new world of possibilities. Why shouldn't a working man own his own house, own shares, go on foreign holidays ? Meanwhile, the Left's response was to call them flashy and materialistic.

Fast-forward to the reign of Princess Tony. Don't listen to Conservative critics, listen to what the Left themselves say their achievment is: they've raised x billion people out of poverty. That's it, that's what they offer: handouts and dependency. That would be bad enough on its own, but add in the rest of their program, confiscatory taxes, the return of catchment areas, stripping of the right of self-defence… If you wanted to devise a program to bring social mobility to a halt, this is what you would do. Churchill claimed that Joseph Chamberlain loved the working man, he loved to see him work. Nu Labour have gone one better: they love to see him not work, just stay fat, ignorant and most of all dependant on the bountiful nature of our Liberal elite.

Humbug'N'The Hood

Normally, a clash between a prominent race hustler and the Met would strike me as the political equivalent of France Vs Argentina: can't they both lose ? But get this: the race hustler in question, future PM and incoherent idiot David Lammy, is whining about the Police not being tough enough in Tottenham.

Yep - no mistake. DJ Chutzpah is in da house!.

To be fair, plenty of us on the Right has protested before about the Filth's habit of racing to a dead halt every time they're called to an incident involving GUUUUUUUUUUNS. Then again, Lammykins never had any trouble with that policy before now. Must have been something about the previous victims of this policy that didn't engage his sympathy.

As it happens, there was something else going on here. Here's the Met's Chief Supt Stephen Bloomfield trying desperately to avoid the elephant in the room:

He said it was irrelevant that the incident happened at Broadwater Farm, where Pc Keith Blakelock was killed in a riot in 1985. The issue was rather how a distressed crowd reacted.
"There were 250 people who were frightened and confused. In those circumstances people don't always respond as they do normally," he said.

Or to translate from Liberal to English, the Filth were worried about being attacked by a mob (and then, inevitably, being accused of provoking the scumbags). Personally, if we must have ethnic greivance miners like Lammy still waving the bloody shirt of Stephen Lawrence, I don't see why we're supposed to forget that it was residents of Broadwater Farm who decapitated a police officer. Neither should we forget how Bernie Grant's celebration of that fact made him a hero to the locals and propelled him into Parliament. Grant, Lammy and the rest of the race-hustling degenerates have built their careers on a toxic mix of racial paranoia, victimhood and outright thuggery, all of which are perfectly exemplified in this case. After all, we're talking about an incident in which a black shot a black in a black area, but Lammy claims it's all the fault of the honkeys, and then… well, let's hear him speak for himself:

"The community perceive that they were not being policed. I am told police were making a risk assessment, but this has had enormous implications for community relations. If this young man had died, this would be a much more serious situation."

So, if the Filth don't stop worrying about the propensity of 'the community' to go on the rampage, then 'the community' will go on the rampage. But it'll still be the white man's fault.

Why Can't Howard Say Something Like This ?

Our disagreement with activist judges isn't based only on the fact that they're liberals and we're conservatives. More important, it's based on the fact that our Constitution didn't establish the [High] Court as a super-legislature, appointed for life, charged with nullifying popular opinion when it conflicts with more "sophisticated" sentiment. One can imagine a government so structured, but it isn't ours, and it wouldn't be a democracy. Those who try to turn the judiciary into a legislature--but an unaccountable one, that never has to stand for re-election--can hardly complain when electoral passions begin to swirl around judicial appointments.

Who Speaks For The Children ?

Well, now this is just shocking! Isn't this just symptomatic of a developing Continental-style 'fraud culture' ? Should the media take some responsibility for continuously glamourising acts of banking ? And what of the fact you can walk in off the street into a so-called 'stationers' and walk out two minutes later with an accounts book ? You can even buy a full set of pens and a ruler with it and the only question asked will be how you want to pay.

The bottom line that no one yet has the courage to ask is this: who really needs a bunch of hoplophobic lunatics ? Surely if these people are so obsessed with seizing guns they should join the Police ? There's simply no good reason why a civilian needs access to high-grade hoplophobic lunacy - they should leave it to the professionals at the Home Office.

UPDATE:

Down in the comments 'Anon' points out that the MAG website shows that it is supported by So Solid Crew.

Apparently, someone told them that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, and they said 'sounds good to us'.

£3 Billion A Year For This ?

I wish I could write like this guy, but I can't so I'll just have to content myself by linking to his report on the Beeb's discovery of a whole new kind of bigotry: Felonophobia. Not for the first time, the BBC have been caught sitting on the evidence. Back in the day, the Beeb just loved to point out the contrast between the latest eruption of 'Tory sleaze' and John Major's 'Back to basics' policy, yet now the Beeb can't see any irony in lectures about morality from a convicted killer ?

This isn't a minor point - you lie down with dogs, you get fleas, and we are entitled to draw conclusions from the fact that this campaign has at its centre a known killer. We are entitled to consider what it exposes about the real attitudes to crime of the campaigners that they have no problem working with such an individual. And yes, we are entitled to consider what it means about the Beeb's claims of impartiality when, yet again, we have to go to a guy named after a dog to get the full story.

Trouble In The Moonbat Enclosure

I'm with St Ann - at least the Soviets were nice enough to be white, meaning that you could call these scumbags scumbags without having to put up with the idiot yapping of the Left claiming you were clearly prejudiced against Slavs.

Now, of course, everything's changed - the USSR let the Left down but they've managed to find an even-worse ideology to moon over and this time they get to call their critics racists. Which is lucky since there's not a lot you can actually say in favour of Islam.

Still, all is not well in Lefty Neverland. Laban Tall points out that the L3 are descending into another bout of typically absurd internecine warfare, this time over the whole question of Islamophobia. The screaming moonbat Left takes issue with the merely screeching moonbat Left and their failure to properly apply socialists principles. Actually, now I think about it, that describes just about every Lefty tiff ever. Normally, I'd say lock the doors and let them have at it, but - for once - the debate does actually raise some valid questions.

The screamers point out - correctly - that the screechers's tolerance of Islam is predicated on the existence of an elusive, yet huge, body of moderate Muslims who support gay rights, women's rights….. in fact, the whole screecher agenda. Or to put it another way, screecher's are so open-minded they'll even accept people just like them.

In contrast, the screamer's are admirably clear-sighted about Islam. They have no illusions about the compatibility of Islam with, say, democracy or the secular state. The only problem is that by acknowledging these facts, they completely undercut their own point. If Islam truly is incompatible with, say, women's rights, then there is nothing irrational or prejudiced in a feminist opposing it. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is the screamers whose motives need to be questioned.

Some would say that the screamer's position is merely the end product of making non-judgementalism your highest aim. Yet, when it comes to the US, Israel or Western Civilisation in general, the screamers have not the slightest qualms about condemning them. Indeed, the only coherent theme in the screamer rhetoric is hatred of the West. Movements such as feminism or gay rights certainly served a useful Gramscian purpose for the screamers, but they don't need them anymore - they have a new hope now and, doubtless with some relief, the screamers can leave Peter Tatchell and Co on the kerb.

Still, for all that, I prefer the screamer position - it's just more honest. These folks hate our civilisation and barely bother to conceal it. The sceechers on the other hand ? What is the search for 'moderate Islam' if not a desperate attempt to avoid the horrible truth obvious to anyone who spends even a minute comparing Sha'ria to secular democracy: our civilisation is better