Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Liberals' New Discovery: Money Is Good

Remember the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey ? The primates stumbling around doing monkey stuff until one of them realises he can use a bone as a tool, thereby setting in motion the evolution of human culture ? Liberals have just picked up the bone. Their revelation is that people are motivated by money. Crazy, but it could just be true! This has prompted a Liberal think tank to come out against perverse incentives in the tax and welfare system which punish those who work hard.

Just kidding!

No, what the Liberals have concluded is what they always conclude: more pay for public sector workers. Is there anything in Liboland which isn't evidence of the desperate need to throw more money at the social working classes ? As Snafu says, couldn't we get the same effect by cutting the pay of the rest ?

You have to admire the chutzpah though. Liberals have spent years describing everyone in the private sector who makes more than £6 per hour as fat cats while waxing lyrical about the selfless Mother Teresa's in the public sector. Now, it turns out that the only way you can get medics to treat people from the ugly part of town is to bribe them. Very alturistic!

Monday, January 30, 2006

How To Get A Femiloon To Shut Up

Just as a snapshot of where we are in the culture wars, a rapist has managed to evade justice by the simple expedient of not turning up in court, instead sending a sick note. What is this ? Primary school ? But that's not the best of it - all this happened nine months ago but the police have only got round to releasing the details. This is the modern Britain David Cameron professes to think is just ducky.

There's a wider issue here though. The femiloons normally need sedating to stop them wallowing in victimhood. To listen to these people, you could think no women ever makes it alive to 60. In fact, to hear their idiot yapping about anorexia, you could think 21 would be a ripe, old age for a woman. Now, here we actual brutality. The system has let a perverted monster out onto the streets. No need for hand-wavey talk of 'intimidating atmospheres', this is the real thing. WARNING! WARNING! Degenerate Predator Out On The Streets! But no, these people are prepared to go nuclear when some guy calls a female colleague 'fat', but faced with a real savage 'zero tolerance' suddenly turns into 'quite a lot of tolerance actually'.

Why is this ? Well, the femiloon movement does have at its black heart a hard core of feminazis, who think the only good man is a dead one, but the brains of the operation are fully signed-up Kool Aid drinkers. They'll rant about men, but only when it suits the objectives of the Gramscian Left. Just as the supposed leaders of the black community handed 'their people' over to the gangsters, so the femiloons have no compunction about throwing a rape victim under the bus rather than give aid and comfort to the real enemy (ie Conservatives) by admitting that, yes, our L3-infested court system is dysfunctional (and that counts double when the scumbag-in-question is a RoPer). Having rapists walking the street is one thing, but Conservatives on the bench ? Now that's really a femiloon's nightmare.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Media Not Mentioning The War Enough

Guess the report into the death of St Jean the Martyr must be even more devastating than we thought. Sir Ian has clearly chosen to follow the Greg Dyke ‘Liberal Martyr’ route. In fact, the subject of choice is even Dykesque – yep, Sir Ian alleges that the media is institutionally racist. And no, he doesn’t mean it in the sense that Laban does.

Of course, you don’t get to be a true Liberal icon simply by coming out with moronic comments, no, they’ve also got to be crude and offensive. The bar is set high, but Sir Ian clears it easily with an attack on the coverage of Soham. He claims that he can’t understand why Soham was such a big story. This is one of those formulations that raises the question: is he really that stupid, or does he just think we are ? Two pretty young girls in a picture postcard village disappear during the height of the silly season, with a photograph taken hours before they were lost and the press jump on it ? Sounds like a job for Mulder and Scully.

In so far as Sir Ian has any kind of point, yes, the media does soft-peddle ethnic crime, but they’re not the only ones. Here’s a poser for Sir Ian: which body shut down a team dealing with the Yardies because they were worried that it unfairly targeted blacks ? I’ll even give him a clue: quite of lot of people you know work there.

The bottom line is that the media doesn’t downplay the extent of the mayhem in ethnic areas because they’re controlled by the Right. Quite the opposite. Seriously, can you imagine if the Daily Mail did an eight page special on, say, the Yardies ? Liberals would be calling for air strikes on their presses.

That’s the irony right there. You couldn’t get a clearer example of why the media avoid reporting on controversial issues in ethnic areas than the sight of a prominent Liberal conjuring up a racial witch hunt despite a complete absence of any of that 'evidence' thing.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Mark Oaten Called And Said You Were A Perv

Hey, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, bashing Google's grovelling to the Chinese - a bit of low-risk anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism combined. Never mind that neither China nor Google are actually known for their vigorous support for Cthe Right, the BBC will take any excuse to hammer home its favorite themes. Which turned out to be the problem. After all, it's not exactly a secret that the BBC spins the news. In particular, so blatant has the spinning become in the handling of viewer comments that the relevant section is near universally known as 'Don't Have Your Say'. No surprise then that the BBC's moralising about somebody else suppressing people with the 'wrong' views caused such a firestorm that even the BBC was forced to allow some dissenting voices to be heard: read and enjoy!

Latest Scores

Just to bring you up to speed on the L3’s attempts to draw a moral equivalence between Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza, at Nazi Nick’s trial they’ve been discussing the BNP’s claim that the folk who barricaded a group of people in a building then set it on fire should have been charged with attempted murder, while at Abu Hamza’s trial, he’s been explaining how the Jews run the media.

See ? They’re exactly the same.

Wrong Type Of Butt

The Treason Party is all-a-flutter. Apparently, a senior member of their front bench has been outed as a hetrosexual. Seriously though, the humbug is reaching astronomic levels - check out the comments on the relevant posts over at Guido's place. Suddenly, the cheerleaders for elephantine government have discovered the benefits of seperation of the personal and the political. All of which just leads to the old question - is it ironic, or just stupid, that the L3 are dealing with scandals centred in lage part around charges of hypocrisy at Lib Scum MPs by taking such a hypocritical line ? This time last year they weren't so sanguine about firing a guy for taking part in a perfectly lawful activity with a male friend.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Big Ron Should've Been A Liberal

It's hard to feel sympathy for Ron Atkinson, but it's even harder to turn a blind eye to the fact that nearly two years later he's still being vilified over using a racist epithet about a black sportsman, when if only he'd thought to have opposed the War on Terror he could have dredged up an ancient racist caricature with nary a peep from the self-appointed Guardian's of Racial Justice - or indeed the actual Guardian (Of course, Galloway is rumoured to have apologised soon afterwards, claiming he'd always respected Rodman's 'natural sense of rythmn').

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Liberals' Bold New War Plan: Surrender

OK, we have a comedian in Britain who dresses like Osama Bin Laden, so I guess there’s certain symmetry in Osama paying tribute to Monty Python’s Black Knight and offering to call it a draw. Apparently, if the US throws the towel in, then he’ll call off his terrifying campaign of hiding in spider holes in north west Pakistan and issuing tapes every 18 months. Otherwise, he’s threatening to escalate to issuing interactive DVDs with deleted scenes and director’s commentary.

Actually, I favour sticking with Plan A: kill them all. After all, at the moment Al-Qaeda is just about the only multinational in the world that isn’t faced with crippling pension costs. By an amazing coincidence, every time the brainless cowboys fire a hellfire missile into a building full of women and childen and cute kittens, supersonic kitten shrapnel flies across the road and hits a senior member of Al-Qaeda who just happens to be walking past. Very spooky.

Not that you would know all this if you were reliant on the MSM, just like you’d be surprised at finding that Osama has demanded the US pull out of Iraq. Huh ? Is this the same Iraq that’s irrelevant to the War on Terror and where the US is hurtling towards inevitable disaster ? Then again, it must be hard to pick up the BBC from inside a spider hole. He probably doesn’t know he’s on the verge of total victory.

Needless to say, the news that the world’s deadliest terrorist has started issuing whiny messages asking why we can’t all just get along has reinvigorated the anti-war Left, as they realise if they don’t get a move on there’ll be no enemy left for them to surrender to. The fact that previous history suggests that Bin Laden isn’t really a negotiations kind of guy has been dismissed as irrelevant. All of this just proves the truth of the old saying: those who will not learn from history are doomed to become Liberals. Of course, given Liberals’ trainwreck understanding of history, it’s not surprising they so utterly fail to learn its lessons.

Take, for example, the L3’s favourite talking point this week: we should negotiate with terrorists because it was through negotiating with terrorists that we managed to achieve peace in Ulster. Now, this is true to a degree, the degree being ‘not at all’. What really happened is this: for thirty years terrorists attacked this country and Liberals helped them any way they could. While some old-style Leftists served this country with honour, Liberals waged a full-spectrum campaign to try and lose us the war. They had no real success until the Caligula government in the mid-90s, at which point they were able to screw things up sufficiently to leave the Tranzi vermin that came next with an open goal. The people who handed over millions of British citizens to terrorist thugs should never be allowed near government again, but now they think their experience in losing a war proves some more general point. The only worthwhile lesson to be drawn from events in Ulster is this one: Liberals lose wars.

Liberals Court Disaster

Looks like the L3’s brilliant strategy to use the power of the State to nail Nick Griffin has worked about as well as all their other great ideas. Having spent years trying to deny Gruppenfurher Nick any kind of platform, the L3 have now decided to give him a chance to address the nation. Now even the BBC has to admit that one of the shocking charges against Nasty Nick is that he predicted that the London transport system would be attacked by Muslims from Yorkshire. Is a statement still ‘inflammatory’ when it’s an entirely accurate prediction of future events ?

The other half of their cunning plan is in falling apart too. After years of turning a blind eye to Captain Hook’s rantings, the government has finally taken action and, wouldcha’believe it, his case is up in court at the same time as Nasty Nick’s. It’s down south somewhere apparently - I’m not sure where, but I’m guessing it’s somewhere with really poor transport links, since that would account for the absence of soi-dissant anti-fascist protestors outside his trial.

Really, I have to ask, how would the L3 argue if they didn’t have moral equivalence ? The trouble is that there’s nothing actually equivalent in the treatment of these two beauties. On the one hand, the L3 – both inside and outside the justice system – are carefully parsing every word Nick Griffin ever said, trying to find grounds to be offended (“what exactly do you mean when you say you ‘would like two sugars’ ?”), meanwhile the L3 are bending over backwards to hide the sheer lunacy of Captain Hook’s rhetoric.

The real equivalence between these two is that one is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam and the other is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam. Both have, in their own way, contradicted the L3 line that Islam is a philosophy of fluffy bunnies and lovely rainbows.

It need hardly be said that these prosecutions are a dagger aimed at the whole concept of free speech, but there’s an even greater danger. Long before July 7 Nick Griffin was an L3 hate figure for predicting terrorist attacks on London by British-born Muslims, meanwhile MI-5 managed to miss the elephants in the room right up until they started exploding. The L3 claim we can’t let the BNP speak freely because that would create an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’, then they claim to be shocked that employees of the same State which persecutes a guy for predicting terrorism by home grown Muslims fail to detect a terrorist plot by home grown Muslims. What would the atmosphere have been like for someone in MI-5 who predicted these attacks in March 2005 ? More to the point, in the light of these prosecutions, what’s it like now for the guy who’s predicted the next strike ?

Friday, January 20, 2006


Turned on the TV the other night to see some dishevelled looking guy babbling incoherently about religion. I thought it was a program about Care In The Community, but no – turns out the guy in question is Richard Dawkins, Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Hey – if this guy wants to spend his time calling people stupid and evil why can’t he get a blog like everyone else ?

More to the point, if the geeks are going to make a serious effort to convince us that they’re not really weird and arrogant, could they choose a less provocative title for their front man than ‘Professor of Public Understanding’. We understand you just fine, we just think your ideas suck.

Anyway, Laban points out an interesting post about the not-so-great man here. Cobb nicely nails what's really wrong with Dawkins' ideas:
This is truly dangerous. It means that we will become dependent on some institutions that correct us, that perfect us. By definition the budget for such an institution would have to be infinite, because the capacity of humans to be wrong, to be immoral, is practically insatiable. I think Dawkins or anyone could be quickly disabused of this notion simply by dropping them into the appropriate Third World asylum for a seven year stint.
Indeed, the vision of a super-state, smoothly correcting each and every human defect can't hardly be anything other than a call for a truly elephantine state. It is entirely characteristic of Dawkins that he fails even to consider that government may sometimes be the problem. More to the point though, this highlights the most obvious omission in Dawkins denunciation of religion.

Religion is in one respect like monarchy: its importance as an institution is not only in the power that it holds, but also that which it denies to others. Consider the Ten Commandments. Here, for the first time in history, was a set of laws that applied equally to everyone - indeed, the Old Testament is full of kings defying God and getting the chop. The point is that religion provides a set of moral values independent of the government of the day. Think about the prosecution’s central point at Nuremburg: an order may be perfectly lawful, yet still wrong. As such, religion puts a roadblock in the way of the very kind of utopian totalitarianism that Dawkins advocates. Here’s Dawkins again on the principles he thinks we should be governed by:
All moral questions, from incest to human cloning, should be resolved using utilitarian criteria, Dawkins argues. “They can and should all be discussed by utilitarian moral philosophers, who’ll ask questions about the balance of suffering and happiness. This is a very different way of doing morality than the absolutist way, which supposes some things are absolutely wrong since we know and feel them to be so. Our morality should be governed by utilitarian claims.”
No room for misquote there. Equally, Dawkins is admirably unequivocal about what it would take to sustain such a society:
It’s probably too strong to say the State should have the right to take children away from their parents”, the professor confides. “But I do think we, as humans in general, have got to look very carefully at the rights of parents – and whether parents really should have the right to indoctrinate their children.
Say what you like about the Church, but do you see anyone arguing that parents who bring their kids up in an atmosphere of militant atheism should have their kids seized by the State ? Then again, these folks probably don’t have the reserves of faith that Dawkins has. Sure, Dawkins may jeeringly point out contradictions in the Bible, but look how he body swerves around the murderous savagery of socialism (both national and international). Wasn’t science supposed to be the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact ? Here are 150 million of them (and counting) but religion is still the root of all evil. Huh ?

For that matter, what evidence does Dawkins have for suggesting that serial killers just need a psychic oil change and a quick spray of mental WD-40 ? Where is the evidence that this kind of behaviour modification is actually possible ? Nowhere, but Dawkins has faith that it could happen, and the Right are pigs for not indulging him in his fantasy.

Dawkins’ maintains that all religions are equally evil – except when Catholicism is the evilest of them all - but how scientific is that ? Surely we can devise some metric of the damage caused by each faith ? Dawkins dare not ask that question. What makes a religion most dangerous is exactly what makes communism and Nazism so dangerous: collectivism – the very thing Dawkins’ ideology calls for. Why else is Dawkins so enraged by religion ? It surely can’t be because he genuinely feels that filthy rich, Oxbridge media stars are oppressed by farmers in Welsh hill villages. Nope – Dawkins doesn’t object to religion because the religious impose their agenda on people like him, but because it hinders people like him imposing their agenda on the religious. Dawkins is a fundamentalist of State power.

Dawkins' opposition is not just to the particulars of any one faith, or even religion itself, no, his vision is of a world stripped not just of faith but of the whole idea of objective morality itself. As he freely admits, Dawkins' World would be governed by an icy utilitarianism, to be decided, no doubt, by the suitably enlightened. Say what you like about him, but Dawkins’ vision of a world governed by philosopher kings ruling without any check or limit to their power sure stands up to what any traditional religions can offer as a vision of Hell.

(H/T to Albert Minimus for the interview link)

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Femiloons In Stupid Victimhood Claim Shocker

Who'd be in the drugs industry ? The government make you spend years and billions of pounds to get your drug to market, then they complain that it's too expensive. Then there's the charidee rabble, endlessly complaining that not enough attention is paid to Third World diseases, then demanding that companies should waive patents on any drug dealing with these diseases. But for full-on pharmohumbuggery, one source stands above all others. Really - if you want to see a doctor panic, wait until your GP prescribes something then ask him how it works. Without the pharmaceutical industry, 90% of medicine would be social work, so quite naturally the medics would rather miss a round of golf than a chance to criticise the industry. Even by their standards, this latest attack is a lu-lu:
Drug companies are being overly cautious in advising pregnant women to avoid using many of their most useful medicines, a leading doctor says.
Vermin! Fancy tricking people into not using their products. Is there no end to their evil ? It gets better:
Women are being denied use of drugs for everything from headaches and depression to infections.
Wow! This isn't just people being too cautious, people are actually denying women these drugs. I'll bet Chimpy McHitlerBurton is behind it.
Women are being ghettoised over treatment, if this was happening to an ethnic group there would be outrage and quite rightly.
Huh ? There are drugs which can't be given to certain ethnic groups. That's not proof that the industry is secretly run by the KKK, that's the realities of genetics. Leaving aside the trainwreck understanding of basic science, the rest of the statement doesn't stand up either. Women aren't being ghettoised - at worst, we're talking about those women with a particular self-limiting condition.

More to the point, as even the BBC concedes, this reluctance to expose pregnant women to drugs arises for perfectly understandable reasons. After Thalidomide it was exactly this kind of femiloon house eunuch who was yapping about eviiiiil companies foisting drugs on pregnant women. They claimed these companies were evil for producing those drugs, so now there aren't any drugs for pregnant women. All the companies have done is followed the logic of both the rhetoric and the policy pushed by the L3 ever since.

Maybe Atlas Shrugged should be a set text in medical school ?

New Toy

About six months after these folks first suggested it, I've finally managed to transfer the blogroll to these guys. Which means I've had to do six months worth of updating. All of which is by way of saying two things: firstly, though it seems OK to me, that's never been much of a guide - so leave a comment if it's disappeared from your screen. Secondly, all the links should now work - same caveat applies.

Our Natural Ruling Class At Play

We're just lucky this incident didn't involve two students from some prole uni like Edinburgh or York - then it would have just degenerated into squalid sadism. Of course this does land our betters in something of a pickle. If they let them stay then it rams home the point that standards are for the leetle peeple. Give them the heave-ho and it raises questions about a selection system that can choose two sadistic muppets like this in the first place - I'm pretty sure Laura Spence has no record of animal cruelty. Either way, it kind of undermines their claim to be a select body of Ubermann. I'm guessing they'll square the circle and claim that the initial concept was sound, but these two young geniuses were let down by the undermotivated proles running our postal system.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

BBC Reporter Seeks New Occupation

John 'misguided criminals' Simpson is at it again. He's angry, really angry. In fact, he's so angry that it's hard to tell what exactly he's angry about. Here's a good rule of thumb: when a member in good standing of the L3 is angry but won't quite say why, that usually means he's up to no good. This case is no exception.

What Simpleton is so angry about turns out to be new laws which make it an offence to attend terrorist training camps. There are certain core principles which underlie the British concept of liberty, but the right to learn how to bring down a 747 isn't one of them. As it happens though, Simpleton isn't excised by the thought of people being cruelly deprived of the chance to study Hostage Taking 101, so much as teed off that the law will be applied equally both to proles and to journalists.

Apparently, Simpleton has heard of the concept of 'equal under law' but he thought it was only for the ordinaries. Needless to say, that's not quite how he puts it, nope - he claims that laws preventing attendance at terrorist training camps will prevent jounalists covering stories about terrorist training camps. Note to the BBC: don't assign Simpleton to any stories involving sex crimes.

Of course, we'd take Simpleton's criticism more seriously if he gave the slightest impression of having considered the need for balance between national defence and press freedom, but Simpleton goes to absurd lengths to deny that there is even a threat. First, we had the whole 'misguided criminals' thing, now we have another lu-lu:
Let's take a practical example. I have gone to, say, a council house in Bradford with three or four al-Qaeda volunteers who are letting me film a discussion: not necessarily about the making or use of a weapon, but perhaps about ways of setting up resistance cells that might at some future stage use violence.
Resistance cells. In Bradford. Obviously fighting the brutal Zionist occupation of West Yorkshire. In so far as Simpson's argument is predicated on the myth of the journalist as disinterested seeker after truth, his easy adoption of the rhectoric of Osama Bin Laden does kind of make the government's case. If nothing else, it certainly shreds any claims Simpson may make for the ability of jounalists to act as some kind of objective judges of the public interest.

What If He'd Only Molested The Scumbag ?

It goes against the grain to help the forces of darkness, but for the mental health of the nation, it has to be said: Liberals, if you’re trying to bamboozle the rest of us into thinking you’re taking seriously infiltration of our nation’s schools by predatory perverts, stop referring to it as a ‘witch hunt’.

Of course, the L3 have some cheese anyway, accusing anyone else of stirring up hysteria. Who exactly was it who decided to enliven a party conference by inviting a bulging eyed lunatic from the Snowdrop campaign to call for Jihad against gun owners ? Call it a crazy hunch, but I’m guessing a significantly lower proportion of gun owners go bananas than paedophiles turn out to be paedophiles. When there is a 1:1 match we’re no longer talking about a correlation, so much as a ‘description of suspect’.

As bizarre as it is to hear Liberals proclaim that we can’t really be sure that convicted paedophiles are paedophiles, we also have the sheer weirdness of Ruth Kelly’s supporters claiming she shouldn’t be fired because she had no idea what was going on in her own department. Yep, it’s the Reverse Nuremberg defense again – bad stuff was done, but only by people who weren’t following orders. Now, after (according to Liberals) officials in the DfES conspired to conceal from our elected representatives that they were allowing paedophiles to work in schools, the answer (again, according to Liberals) is to strip politicians of their nominal authority and transfer the whole process to the self-same officials who approved the perverts in the first place. That’ll fix it!

As with 90% of what Liberals believe, there’s a strong undercurrent of intellectual snobbery in their position. They like to argue that public opposition to allowing sexual predators to range freely through the education system is proof positive of the Great Unwashed’s lack of nuance, simplistic worldview and general lack of Frenchness. The funny thing is that there are some issues where Liberal nuance is conspicuous by its absence. Take the evils of felonophobia. Apparently, this isn’t a complex issue. Child molestation needs thinking about, but calling pondscum pondscum is an unmitigated evil. How’s that for a summation of what the L3 really stand for: ‘Protecting your kids nearly as well as we protect criminals' ?


Needless to say, they're discussing this over at DC's place, where several of them raise a point I myself was wondering about, namely what happened to all those human rights laws the L3 foisted on us to prevent inappropriate bugging of Achmed Al-Semtex ? ,

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Elvis Found Alive!

That’d be a surprise. What isn’t a surprise is finding out that the Met has ordered a review into how they handle investigations into ‘hate speech’. Widespread ridicule – and the too obvious to miss double standards on display - might have forced them to investigate Sir Icky Sickball, but they’ll not let it happen again. I feel for whichever subordinate gets scapegoated for all this: ‘Johnson you idiot! It’s only supposed to be hate speech if it involves Conservatives. Not one of our people!’

We're Just Lucky Perverts Don't Create "An Environment Of Intimidation"

I think ATW are bang on here when they point out the sheer humbuggery of the Left. For the record, the charge was not that the nonce-in-question merely supports paedophillia, it was that he paid money to access what he thought was a nonce site. Free speech means you have the right to criticise our gun laws, not the right to buy a pistol.

It's not just education either. The Left persecutes those with bad opinions in other sectors too. To the point: the L3 are not motivated by any warped sense of Christian charity or ideals of limited government. They’re certainly capable of throwing the first stone, it’s just that they don’t think being a pervert is that big a thing. So why do they get so foot-stampey when I say that ?

Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding

It’s generally true that the Left thinks the Right shouldn’t be allowed to state their case, while the Right thinks Leftists should be positively encouraged to explain what they really think. That’s why Liberals keep yapping about the danger from alleged extremists on the web, while right-wing maniacs such as myself find ourselves screaming at the car radio ‘Look, moron, you asked him about health policy, now you’re letting him get away with babbling about his disabled child. Get a grip!’

All of which is by way of saying that I feel more positive about a certain movie than ATW. Not that I don’t agree with them about the vile ideological intentions of the movie. When the L3 charge Bush with being a cowboy, they’re – for once – exactly right. The cowboy is an icon of what’s right with our civilization, and the L3 attacks on the cowboy myth are motivated by that very fact.

Still, with all that, I think it’s rather funny. Look at all those Liberal film reviewers. They bang on and on about how transgressive the film is, how daring, how it’s really stuck it to the BushChimpler...and so on, until finally they have to admit that, well, y’know, not a lot actually happens. The film doesn’t even qualify as parody – parody requires at least a basic knowledge of the source material. This film is the equivalent of throwing a tin of paint over a statue of John Wayne.

What ‘Brokeback Mountain’ really reveals is the fundamental hollowness of our opponents. For all that talk of Gay History Months, Gay Pride parades and the like, when it’s time to produce a gay movie, it’s about two shepherds who wander round, occasionally buggering each other. So that was what all the hate was about ? That was what the Pink Wedge launched their crusade for ? ‘Brokeback Mountan’ not only establishes just how much these people hate Western Civilisation, it also exposes their total inability to suggest any workable alternative.

What's Wrong With David Cameron

Yep, last week was another classic one for British justice. Actually, the BBC is downplaying the extent of the victim’s injuries – the bloke has been left missing parts of his brain and skull, so badly brain-damaged that he has no real ability to remember anything. What this is, is an example of sheer contempt for the public at large – not just the assailant, the judge as well.

There are plenty of issues which split the nation – this isn’t one of them. It doesn’t matter whether you ask Joe Bloke sitting in a Labour club in a former pit village, or you ask Sir Tristian Duckfield at the Trumpton Hunt Ball, they’ll tell you that this sentence is a disgrace. At risk of stating the obvious, judicial independence was supposed to mean independence from undue interference by the other two arms of government, not that the judiciary should exists as some kind of free-floating Liberal la-la land.

What’s happened to our justice system is a perfect microcosm of what the L3 would like to happen to Britain as a whole. The philosopher kings on the bench, conjuring up whatever spurious arguments are needed to justify pushing the L3 agenda are the very epitome of Liberalism. Liberals believe in the ability of the elite – who, amazingly, turn out to be folks just like them – to bring about a new golden age. The L3 will admit that things haven’t always worked out so far, but that’s only because they haven’t been given enough power. After all, a total transformation of society demands total power. This is why the L3 are so antagonistic to concepts such as objective legal principles, religion or democratic accountability: all limit the ability of the elite to impose their views on the world.

Equally, this is the antithesis of what Conservatism is about. But now we’ve got David Cameron giving the store away. Cameron doesn’t have any issues with the idea of an out of control elite, just as long as he’s part of it. Say what you like about Princess Tony, but he was a Liberal pushing Liberalism. Cameron is far worse: he’s actually conceding the debate to the Left. So now the 90% of the population that think that a guy who beats a man until he’s badly brain-damaged might be the sort of person we’d rather not have on the street find themselves effectively disenfranchised.

That’s what’s wrong with Cameron, and that’s why a Conservative victory could be worse than another defeat. Whatever tactical changes Cameron may make, he has swallowed whole the Liberal metacontext. Blair was always enough of a realist always to conceal his Liberalism behind blather about being ‘tough on crime’, but now by surrendering the whole debate to the L3, Cameron could, by default, manage the almost impossible and make Liberalism look credible.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Chutzpah Madras

Mr FM reports on the latest happenings in the dead dog trade. Glad to see that the definition of 'highly skilled immigrants we need for our high tech industries' seems to include 20 000 waiters per year. Either being a waiter is a lot more dangerous than we thought, or the immigration system is a farce. I think I know where my money's going.

I can kind of see what Mr FM is on about, but I still think it's ironic to hear arguments like these:

Ashraf Uddin, the Secretary-General of the Bangladesh Caterers’ Association, said that at least 20,000 workers a year were needed to work in Britain’s 10,000 Indian restaurants. The Government had told them to take Eastern Europeans. “Unless they know our culture, our language, our way of working, it’s a complete mess,” he said.
See, that was kind of the thinking of us nasty Nazis in the VRWC when we failed to throw our hats in the air on hearing that we're importing 20 000 unskilled RoPers p.a. Say what you like about Poles, but at least they won't try and blow up the kitchen.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

BBC: Wait While We Find A Way To Blame The Natives

You know what we don't have enough of on the BBC ? Coverage of Islam. Sometimes a whole day can go past without an article about how great the RoP is. Fortunatly, Emily Buchanan is on hand to partially redress the balance by reminding us who the real victims of July 7 were. You may be shocked to learn that the real reason for the bombings was the the killers just weren't Islamic enough. The RP gives this nonsense a well-deserved savaging.

Strangely though, there's another story involving the RoP that the BBC seems reluctant to publish. Why might that be ?

Monday, January 09, 2006

It's Grim Down South

What is this ? National Bust-A-Taboo week ? Patricia Hewitt asks the question many have been afraid to ask: does anyone know if David Cameron has a disabled son ? There’s been nothing about it in the papers…..

Spare me the girly hysteria, Cameroonatics. What does the caption on the picture here say ? Exactly. The only thing more obnoxious than Cameron’s constant parading of a young child is the bogus outrage when anyone points out Cameron’s constant parading of a young child. The poor lad’s covering more ground than half the shadow cabinet, but Cameron’s opponents are pigs for dragging his family into politics.

The whole idea behind these constant references to Cameron Jr is to humanise the prissy, elitist jerk. It’s bad enough having to put up with politicians claiming to ‘feel your pain’, now we’ve got one asking you to feel his. Seriously, I wonder exactly what ordinary parents bringing up disabled children think about a filthy rich, insanely well-connected MP proclaiming that he knows exactly what they’re going through.

OK, just for the sense of Cameron’s sleazy, manipulative argument, let’s accept that poor Ivan’s misfortune gives Lord Snooty particular insight into the plight of families with disabled children. If Cameron having a disabled child means he’s well qualified to talk about disabled children, doesn’t the yin to that yang mean he’s hopelessly unqualified to talk about just about everything else ?

Here’s a guy who’s closest encounter with the world of real work was a cameo as Chief Flack for a media megacorp – how exactly is this bloke supposed to understand life in a small business ? Ditto, are we supposed to be surprised that a filthy rich bloke sees no problem with hitting the public with tuition fees and road pricing without any corresponding tax cuts ? If the Conservatives are going to base their campaign on their leader’s life experience, they might want to choose someone other than an arrogant, Metropolitan ponce born with a whole cutlery drawer full of silver spoons in his mouth.

So, That's Where The Kids Get It From

Just this once I’ll agree with the teaching unions: we do need to do something about the disruptive morons in our nations schools:

The statement that there will be no more "community" schools built and run by local authorities provoked a torrent of cries of "shame" and "why?" from the sparsely populated hall at the North of England Education Conference in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear.

Only around 150 of the 350 delegates waited to hear her speech on the final day of the annual conference.
Not that Ruth Kelly has much to be proud of. How come the media’s always implying that Conservatives are all secretly awaiting the rise of the Fourth Reich, but will never draw attention to the L3’s... ambiguous position as regards paedophiles. We’ve never appointed a guy with convictions for racially-motivated violence to the Commission for Racial Equality, meanwhile on the Left side of the aisle...

Sunday, January 08, 2006

I-Pods No Longer Cool

Hey, I've suddenly realised: I haven't mocked David Cameron for, well, days. Of course, it is a weekend so the MRMU is well down (that's Mean Rate of Moronic Utterances). Still, I'm sure I'll find...


I guess after Girly Week, it’s now the kids chance to be patronised by Lord Snooty. Yep – it’s now David Cameron, Groovy Teacher. He’s letting us know that he’s really down with the kids, listening to groovy sounds on his i-pod. And what’s he listening to ? RadioHead, Pulp and Blur.

C’mon! Was there ever a more transparently obvious attempt to 'relate' ? Not to be a music snob – I’m practically tone deaf, and besides these are all fine, unobjectionable bands, but all three ? And with nowt else ? No quirky choices ? No lesser-known bands ? Yep - this guy can't even talk about his choice in music without focus grouping it to death.

You want proof positive ? He mentioned one other band, the 1980s finest purveyor of psedo-intellectual drivel to whiny adolescents of all ages, the folks who proved you can cover for lack of talent by producing really 'deep' lyrics that make the back of a cornflake packet look like the complete work of Aristole. Yep, Lord Snooty claims to be a Smiths fan. Gosh, he must be really sensitive!.

Did Someone Leave The Sewer Entrance Open ?

Revealing though the saga of Ginger McBlackout was, there is a downside to it. Once again, the neo-prohibitionists loonies have been given a chance to pollute the airwaves with their garbage, and their crazed desire to define addiction down to the point where drinking a half of lager shandy is proof positive of mental collapse. Forget all this talk of innocent people going about their daily business and suddenly being suddenly being sucked into a whirlpool of drunken excess - that's just giving people false hope.

That’s the thing that sticks in the throat. While there is no doubt that Kennedy’s boozing did affect his ability to do his job, that’s not the angle many of the prohibs are taking. Nope, the line that’s being pushed is that the mere fact of heavy drinking should exclude him from high office. Need I even mention that You-Know-Who claimed to have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol took out of him ? Lady Thatcher liked her whisky as well. Then again, you can’t read the ‘gatekeeper’ scene from Macbeth and not realise Billy knew his booze. Ditto, when Crick & Watson cracked the secret of DNA they went the pub to celebrate. Hell, human civilisation may well have been founded by drunks. So we have our heroes, while the prohibs are desperately trying to get people to forget who their most famous supporter was, so naturally it follows that being wasted makes you unfit for serous work.

Of course, there are people who really shouldn’t drink and, in fact, I wouldn’t actually encourage anyone to drink. Ben Franklin said that beer was proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy. You either understand what he meant or you don’t. If you’re in Group II then fine, just toddle off and do whatever you people do. The problem is not with people not drinking, it’s with people who enjoy the benefits of a civilisation built by drunkards, then sanctimoniously denounce HMS Booze and all who sail in her. Hey, we want volunteers not conscripts, but don’t claim that not pitching in is actually a sign of moral supremacy.

It’s enough to make you want to misquote Jack Nicholson:

We live in a world that has problems, and those problems have to be solved by men with booze. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Jenny Tonge ? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for George Best, and you curse the hooch. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Best's death, while tragic, was the price he paid for the very creative genius whose loss you mourn. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, is the price of that creativity. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in the pub, you need me in the pub. We use words like drunk, loaded and wasted. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent making something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under a blanket that we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a six pack, and start going for it. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to, you can buy your own orange juice, you tart!

Now, Theresa, That's A Nasty Party

That Jenny Tonge hey ? Who’d have thunk that an anti-Semitic terrorist groupie would be so horrible ? Not the MSM apparently. Having spent years trying to pass off the Treason Party as a bunch of loveable Ealing comedyesque eccentrics, they’ve been powerless to put a positive spin on last week’s political lynching of Charles Kennedy.

Personally, I have a lot of sympathy with Ginger McBlackout. Let’s face it: who wouldn’t be hitting the hooch if they spent their working day surrounded by Lib Dems ? Kennedy has performed a valuable public service: exposing what a nasty bunch of weasels these people actually are. Of course, those of us in this magnificent blogosphere of ours always knew that and now, after this display of sheer hatred and nastiness, so does everyone else.

The Greatest Story Never Told

So now we know: Ginger McBlackout is a turps nudger. Now that the enemy has surrendered, the MSM have decided to declare war. OK, so you can’t say there was a complete news blackout over Kennedy’s liver lubeing, but there was certainly nothing that would lead the non-blog reading, non-political obsessive to suspect that for the last few years – including an election campaign – one of the politicians professing to be a prime-minister-in-waiting has actually been a politician-in-wasted. Bottom line: if you were relying on the MSM for news, last week's events would have come as a shock.

Predictably, the only journo to take this charge head on is Nick Robinson. Apparently, he’s still too new in his job to have learned to treat complaints from the public with the BBC’s trademark mixture of lofty contempt and sneering abuse. Still, while max respect is due to him, his arguments simply don’t hang together.

We’re told that it wasn’t an issue because Kennedy was still able to perform his duties, but how exactly did the revelation that, say, Michael Portillo 'worked both sides of the House' affect his ability to perform his duties ? Back in the days of the Caligula administration, anyone getting their news from the MSM – and we all did back then – would’ve thought the name of John Major’s party was ‘Tory Sleaze’. Yes, ‘Back to Basics’ and all that, but you can’t tell me that wandering around blasted was exactly the centrepiece of the Lib Dems manifesto.

As for as the suggestion that the BBC refused to pursue tips about Kennedy’s drinking due to lack of independent evidence, I have only two words: Ark Royal. Britain’s flagship in the Iraq invasion famously turned off the BBC feed after the Beeb broadcast allegations that a collision between two of their choppers was caused by bad maintenance. Call it a wild guess, but I’m willing to bet that the BBC had more evidence of Kennedy’s drinking last summer than they had evidence of bad maintenance in the Royal Navy when they broadcast that report (during wartime and with the bodies barely cold).

Jounalists keep yapping about how they’re a profession, a calling, a guild, a... well, anything but prole scum like bloggers, but the quid pro quo for the special status of journalists is that the Fourth Estate is supposed to be the public’s watchdogs. The relationship between journalists and politicians is supposed to be analogous to that between the Flying Squad and bank robbers, but it appears to be more like that between Hello magazine and Posh’n’Becks (but without the tough questions). If nothing else, it is a revelation to hear that an organisation which gobbles up £3 billion p.a. of the public’s money is incapable of breaking stories absent either a full confession, or a guy turning up at the front desk with a proof for Kennedy’s new book “Breakfast: The Most Important Drink of the Day”.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Arbeit Macht Frei

Just to summerise recent events: Cameron gave a speech talking about the evils of chocolate oranges and that still wasn't the nuttiest thing he's said all week. In case you missed Cameron declaring the 'War on Chocolate Oranges', he was worried that innocent bloaters are being held down and forced to eat chocolate by the evil minions of big business.

Speaking personally, nothing says ‘serious politics’ to me more than a stoner lecturing the public on healthy lifestyles. Given Cameron’s public pronouncements, I give it three years into the Cameron premiership before you’ll turn on the TV to hear six people have been charged with trying to smuggle chocolate into the country hidden in a crate of cocaine.

On the other hand, Cameron is particularly well equipped to talk about companies encouraging excess: via Laban, we find this. Hey, I’m all in favour of binge drinking, but then I don’t want civil servants hiding behind the magazine racks, ready to ambush innocent fatties.

Then again, coherency has never been Cameron’s thing. That’s why I can’t get excited about the fact he gives his speeches without notes. Hey, with one of his speeches, who couldn’t ? How hard can it be to spend ten minutes stringing random soundbites together….. communities… new…. modern… reach out…. schools….. opportunity… zzzzzzzzzzz ?

At least I always assumed Cameron was simply incoherent, but recent events have suggested that he actually has no idea what it is he’s saying in the first place. Try this:
[Cameron] said trusting people and sharing responsibility would be at the heart of his Conservative Party, which he claimed was heading "into the mainstream of British politics".
And what was he pushing in that speech ?
School-leavers could be forced to do community work under a Conservative government, David Cameron has said.

He said full details had yet to be worked out but options included a compulsory scheme lasting four months, with lottery cash as a funding option.
Yes, he’s trusting people , he’s trusting them to serve as a member of People’s Labour Battalion 2371. I mean, I know those of us on the Right keep saying that Liberalism always ends in the Gulag, but the corrupting effect of power isn’t supposed to take effect until people are actually in power. What’s this guy going to be like when he doesn’t have to face an election ?

Could things get any worse ? Try this:
In a speech last July, Mr Cameron spoke of his desire to create a "new National Movement" to replicate the sense of shared achievement experienced by people of his father's generation who did national service.

"We should view this new enterprise as something for every young person in our country. An essential part of growing up to be a British citizen, not just an add-on extra for a select few", said Mr Cameron in his speech.
Forget stoner health tips, here we have a guy who’s never held down an real job in his life jabbering about the benefits of forced labour. I notice he isn’t getting measured up for a spade (mind you, he wouldn’t know what to call it).

Just for the record: an essential part of growing up to be a British citizen is learning to appreciate the great gift of living in a country where the government can’t arbitrarily decide to press you into servitude. Let other less fortunate nations suffer under the curse of ‘National Movements’. Britain’s glory is precisely that we were the first nation not to buy all this rubbish. In nations where the citizen is little more than a drone to be disposed of at the whim of the elite (oops, I mean ‘for the good of society’), there is no end of need for ‘shared achievements’ and the like. A healthy society should not need such Frankensteinian methods to ensure the loyalty of its citizens. Forced labour in time of peace is not a cure for our social problems, but the fact it can be seriously suggested is a good clue as to how things got so screwed up in the first place.

Heaven Prepares For War

Hey, they’ve only had gay marriage for a month and already there’s a nasty break-up. Yep, the Gay/Islamic axis has broken down – and they went so well together! Apparently, the Pink Wedge have just discovered that Islamopaths don’t approve of rampant rectal rogering. Who was hiding that from Daffyd ?

Here’s gay activist Ben Cohen on Sir Icky Sickball:
As a liberal, I could say to Sir Iqbal: “I disagree with you but I tolerate the right for you to be intolerant.” However, I’m not sure that we can continue be tolerant of those who show so little respect for our liberal way of life.
Yep, it was one thing when the Islamopaths were flying planes into buildings, killing filmmakers or blowing up buses, but now they’ve come out against gay marriage, well, that’s just going too far.

And thus was refuted the caricature of gay activists as crazed narcissists.

Me, I’m just enjoying the thought of what Benny can possibly mean when he talks about refusing to tolerate Islamopaths. Does that mean that the First Division of the Foreign Object Legion, aka the Fighting Fabulous, are mobilising ? Is the Lesbian Bomber Wing switching to carpet bombing rather than carpet eating ? Is the flagship of the Queen's Navy, the Sir Elton John filling up with seamen ? Maybe there will be a special TV show: Queer Eye For The Counter-Terrorist Guy (“black boiler suits are soooo 1980s”).

Excuse my lack of – ahem! - respect, but I return to the above point. The bloodthirsty nature of Islam has been blindly obvious almost from the moment the Paedo Prophet came off the mountain, yet up until 10 minutes ago the Pink Wedge were prepared to break any amount of bread with them. But now they claim to be shocked – shocked! – that Islam isn’t, in fact, a philosophy of fluffy bunnies and beautiful rainbows.

Actually, I was less surprised than many on the Right that the Pink Wedge threw their lot in with the Religion of Peace in the first place. Consider a couple of Christian OAPs who notice certain literature on display in council offices, who then write to the council claiming that they should have the right to place Christian literature in an equally prominent position, only to find the council instead send the police round to intimidate them. You probably remember that in this specific case it was actually gay literature they saw, but who thinks it couldn’t have happened with Islamic literature ? That was why the Pink Wedge climbed into bed with the Islamopaths: a shared contempt for Judeo-Christian based western civilisation. The only thing the Daffyds forgot was that while traditional British values prevented them imposing their lifestyle on the public, it also prevented other people imposing their lifestyle on gays. Now the penny’s dropped, and suddenly they’re born-again culture warriors.

No doubt the full armoury of whiny queen posturing will soon be deployed against the Religion of Peace, but there’s a sting in the tail. Most of British society might have been mau-maued into treating even the most absurd of pronouncements from the Pink Wedge with at least feigned respect, but as Laban points out, the Islamopaths are a different story. This could get nasty – or hilarious.

(h/t to Dave)

Laying Down The Ground Rules

Thinking about yesterday’s post, it occurs to me that what’s happened in our schools is a microcosm of what’s happened in the wider culture. Just as the femiloons succeeded in establishing female supremacy simply by warping the definition of success to the point where boys can only succeed in so far as they act as ersatz girls, so the broader mass of Gramscians have managed to capture the public debate by redefining the issues in a way which traps Conservatives into the rhetorical equivalent of being forced to answer whether or not they’ve stopped beating their wives.

Look at issues like the environment: the L3 have cast the debate in the public mind as one between Liberals, who propose harsh but necessary restrictions on freedom, and moustache-twirling Conservatives who only want to make a quick buck before flying home to Mars. There are real question marks over the L3 position, for example whether anthrogenic global warming even exists or the efficacy of their proposed solutions, but they’ve managed to evade that by framing the debate as one between those who ‘care for the environment’, and us nasty Conservatives.

Lord Snooty’s response appears to be the political equivalent of our hypothetical schoolboy getting a sex change. Cameron has swallowed the Liberal agenda whole. This is supposed to make the Conservatives electable, but why would we need Conservative Liberals when we can have actual Liberal Liberals ? In adopting Liberal policies without adopting the underlying philosophy, Cameron manages to offer the worst of all possible worlds. Look at welfare: previously, Tory policy was heavily tinged with Social Darwinism, now suddenly redistribution is in. So instead of ignoring our dysfunctional underclass, the Tories are instead trying to buy them off with other people’s money. Neither approach speaks of a party with any long-term interest in rebuilding British society.

In contrast, Gordon Brown gets a lot of stick from Conservatives, but buried under the rubble of his policies there remains at least a half-formed suggestion of the idea that people are better off working – even makeworking - rather than being paid to watch Celebrity Dog Molestation, or whatever’s on daytime TV these days. Certainly, the Tories have no equivalent figure to Frank Field, a man who is at least as unblinking in his criticism of the state of modern Britain as he is determined to use the power of government to fix it.

So it is with much of what Cameron proposes. He promises not to reform the NHS ? Well, Duh! It’s not like he’s going to have to use it, is he ? At least with Nu Lab there is a vanishingly small probability of reform. In contrast, Cameron is a prisoner of his own rhetoric. Having implicitly accepted the central tenets of modern Liberalism, Cameron is left with literally nothing to say, save for the dreary rhetoric of managerialism.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Stay Dumb

Interesting set of comments going on at Althouse. Ann herself puts her finger on an annoying tendency in the reporting of much modern research:

Let me tie this to my usual point that whatever is discovered to be true of the female is portrayed as superior. Here, we see characteristics discovered in the male portrayed as a deficiency in "noncognitive skills." But isn't this because the scientists are defining "noncognitive skills" to fit what they find to be true of girls? Once could just as well spin what the boys seem to have as "noncognitive skill." You can easily translate Jacob's diagnosis into a positive one for the boys: Boys have wide-ranging, active interests and the capacity to deftly shift from one area of interest to the next. They resist becoming bogged down in details and meaningless exercises and hold fast to their independence. They are not subservient and are straightforward in their criticisms of authority figures.

Twenty years ago the femiloons were stamping their little feet over supposedly pervasive - yet completely unverifiable - bias against girls in the classroom. Now, there's no need to retreat into voodoo science to find evidence of a system biased against one gender. So what say the soi dissant proponents of 'sexual equality' now ?

Of course, this is a common theme where the femiloons are concerned. As Laban hints at, their current doctrine on prostitution is the exact mirror image of that of the Victorians. Or consider how the courts deal with child custody cases ? Apparently, there are no differences between genders, except women are better.

Incidentally, this feeds into something Lord Snooty was babbling about last week. The Wothless One professed to be worried by the alleged gap in wages between men and women. Leaving aside minor points (like, he was talking rubbish), this takes us back to AA's point: how come girls doing well at school means boys are STOOPID, but boys earning more in work means that every business in the country is in a dark conspiracy to overpay men ?

It's that thing again, the metacontext. Sure, some young lad may have a good knowledge of, say, chemistry, but he’s being assessed not only on his ability in that particular subject, but also on a bunch of overarching criteria that, wouldcha’believe it, just happen to favour girlies. No matter how well he knows his nitrates, the dice are loaded against him. Ambitious young boys find themselves faced with a horrible dilemma: try to fit in with a system even at the expense of being forced to act in a way totally alien to their nature, or drop out and use their talents somewhere with a more level playing field.

It's our old friend Gramsci again, and the L3 obsession with dividing the world into the oppressed and the oppressors. Girls are victims and boys are bad, and the fact that Joanne ends up earning less than John proves the company is secretly discriminating against half the workforce. A-huh.

The L3 have presided over the perversion of our educational system into something that overtly discriminates against half their customer base. Not only are boys discrimated against in the marking criteria, they're not even allowed to act like boys. Hell, the L3 keep yapping about discrimination against women in education, but I'd like to know when exactly female students faced anything equivalent to the massive prescribing of Ritalin to modern boys. Say what you like about Lady Thatcher, but at least she didn't want to turn young kids into zombies. That took the rise of Liberalism - just something to be aware of next time someone mentions how nasty Conservatives are.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

But Did Anyone Flush "Mein Kampf" Down The U-Bend ?

No wonder the Left doesn't want the kids to study the Second World War. The L3 keep telling us that World War II proves that the country can be defended without sacrificing...well, anything really. To listen to these people, Fighter Command was only able to use reasonable force to deal with German aviation enthusiasts who blundered into British airspace, the BBC aired documentaries claiming the Wehrmacht didn't actually exist and the Daily Mail had a front page exclusive with a whistle-blower who'd exposed the government's secret eavesdropping site at Bletchley Park.

As with 90% of what the L3 believe, the only problem is that it's complete rubbish. Britain in WWII was not in fact a particularly well-armed hippy commune. Each and every technique was used to assure victory, from Operation Gommorah to witchcraft trials. More to the point, in the specific area of treatment of those who had committed serious crimes, there was no question of 'due process'. Not only did Britain have its own Gitmo (as the L3 wouldno doubt put it), but we now find that - unlike Hitler's spiritual descendant in the White House - there was no question of Churchill wanting to allow military tribunals to execute Nazis. In fact, he didn't see any reason to bother with a trial at all. He wanted Nazis shot on identification. Guess that must mean Churchill=Hitler, mmmmmmmmmmmmm ?