Never mind the other questions about Nu Lab's innovative approach to deporting criminals, what I want to know is what happened to all that Liberal abhorance of political interference in judical decisions ? When some bewigged fool decides that Mohammed Al-Scumbag can stay in the country, that's it: game over. But when the courts decide a criminal's to be deported at end of sentence ? That's just friendly advice. Take it or leave it.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The Cap Fits
Returning briefly to England from France for a speaking engagement, I bought three of the major dailies to catch up on the latest developments in my native land. The impression they gave was of a country in the grip of a thoroughgoing moral frivolity. In a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.As ever, the good doctor is bang on. Consider recent events in law enforcement. Liberals have been all a flutter after Channel 4 exclusively revealed that public sector workers can be lazy (not that they put it that way), but while Cheapkebabgate was dominating the headlines, you needed to hire sniffer dogs to find this story (or have a commenter point it out – thanks Max!).
Lemme check the scorecard here….hmmm, now I think about it, I’d have to say that murder does seem more serious than cricket in the car park. But don’t tell Liberals that. What an insight it was into the way Britain is policed that a Chief Constable can come out with this:
Even if we had arrested Quintas following the assault, it can only be a matter of speculation whether that would have changed his intentions or behaviourTrue enough, but by completely failing to mount an effective response to his crimes, the police themselves encouraged Quintas to ramp up his offending. It’s ‘broken windows’ again. Come to think of it, isn’t domestic violence just about the only context where Liberals think there’s a role for ‘zero tolerance’ ? But no, the femiloon community, predictably enraged by the failure of police to treat allegations by members of the underclass as the Word of God, are unmoved by actual, real savagery.
So now the worker bees face another round of witch hunting, with raids being made on suburban police stations to try and find naughty pictures. Meanwhile, a dysfunctional system that sends cops after mystery dogs instead of psycho ex-boyfriends needs no overhaul. Chief Constables can go about their business mercifully free of the ‘professional standards’ KGB, no matter how many pointless deaths there are on their watch. For the rest of us, I guess the answers simple: if you need the police fast, make a point of telling them how worried you are about ‘mein sheepen’, that way they might mistake you for a distressed German shepherd.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Pot Calling The Kettle......Something
The BBC reports the Treason Party’s demand that the BNP not put up a candidate in the local elections in Huyton. And why ? Ah well, that’s where Anthony Walker was murdered. Huh ?
As it happens, and despite the impression the BBC give, the Walkers refused to be press ganged into the Lib’s rantings, restricting themselves to releasing an anodyne statement saying that they can’t see how the BNP candidacy will help race relations – not hitherto known to be a major concern of the BNP. Fortunately, the Liberals’ never need anyone’s help to rant:
In so far as an actual point can be identified, Liberals seem to be saying that the killers of Anthony Walker were racists and so is the BNP so the BNP killed Anthony Walker. Or something.
If nothing else, this attempt to mau-mau a political party into withdrawing from an election should stop Liberals taking out onions over the world’s ‘disenfranchised’. But let’s, for the sake of the Liberal’s insane argument, accept that the BNP is responsible for the death of Anthony Walker. Can we have some sauce for that goose ?
After all, exactly this kind of PC hysteria has become endemic in the public services. Laban catalogues some of the more extreme examples in the prison service, and asks whether or not the atmosphere of frenzied witch hunting had anything to do with the development of a culture where no one dared look at a serious offender’s file and say ‘hey, I thought this guy was scheduled for deportation’ ?
On a similar theme, why is there this fatwa on asking who the July 7 bombers would have voted for ? After all, whatever the BNP may or may not believe, it’s not like they had MPs or national media exposure to push their policies. The BNP never ridiculed the possibility of racial attacks in Britain. They never expressed sympathy for those who committed racists murders abroad. They never complained about the demonisation of racist killers. More to the point, they never tried to block legislation aimed at racist killers or smeared law enforcement professionals trying to track down these thugs as closet totalitarians. Liberals did all this and more when the issue was terrorism.
There’s no need for girly-girl talk about ‘values’ when the subject is Liberal support for terrorists, we have hard facts. Right up until July 7, the Treason Party was denouncing everyone who warned of the danger. Afterwards, there was a short silence, for all of about five minutes, after which mentally subnormal service was resumed. Maybe the BNP should be shamed by the possibility that two racist morons might support them, but looking at the Treason Party’s policies, the problem isn’t so much that the July 7 bombers would approve of the Treason Party, so much as that so many of their members seem to approve of the bombers.
As it happens, and despite the impression the BBC give, the Walkers refused to be press ganged into the Lib’s rantings, restricting themselves to releasing an anodyne statement saying that they can’t see how the BNP candidacy will help race relations – not hitherto known to be a major concern of the BNP. Fortunately, the Liberals’ never need anyone’s help to rant:
To actually put a candidate forward is not only repugnant but also goes against what I would consider to be decent human valuesIn which parallel universe is the party of Mark Oaten, Jenny Tonge and voting mills qualified to talk about decency ? You can imagine the furore if the BNP had started declaring that their opponents lacked decent human values. For the record, there is no evidence that the killers were members of, approved of, or even knew any members of, the BNP.
In so far as an actual point can be identified, Liberals seem to be saying that the killers of Anthony Walker were racists and so is the BNP so the BNP killed Anthony Walker. Or something.
If nothing else, this attempt to mau-mau a political party into withdrawing from an election should stop Liberals taking out onions over the world’s ‘disenfranchised’. But let’s, for the sake of the Liberal’s insane argument, accept that the BNP is responsible for the death of Anthony Walker. Can we have some sauce for that goose ?
After all, exactly this kind of PC hysteria has become endemic in the public services. Laban catalogues some of the more extreme examples in the prison service, and asks whether or not the atmosphere of frenzied witch hunting had anything to do with the development of a culture where no one dared look at a serious offender’s file and say ‘hey, I thought this guy was scheduled for deportation’ ?
On a similar theme, why is there this fatwa on asking who the July 7 bombers would have voted for ? After all, whatever the BNP may or may not believe, it’s not like they had MPs or national media exposure to push their policies. The BNP never ridiculed the possibility of racial attacks in Britain. They never expressed sympathy for those who committed racists murders abroad. They never complained about the demonisation of racist killers. More to the point, they never tried to block legislation aimed at racist killers or smeared law enforcement professionals trying to track down these thugs as closet totalitarians. Liberals did all this and more when the issue was terrorism.
There’s no need for girly-girl talk about ‘values’ when the subject is Liberal support for terrorists, we have hard facts. Right up until July 7, the Treason Party was denouncing everyone who warned of the danger. Afterwards, there was a short silence, for all of about five minutes, after which mentally subnormal service was resumed. Maybe the BNP should be shamed by the possibility that two racist morons might support them, but looking at the Treason Party’s policies, the problem isn’t so much that the July 7 bombers would approve of the Treason Party, so much as that so many of their members seem to approve of the bombers.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Can't We Just Deport The Liberals ?
Given that the chief excuse for the Conservatives electing David Cameron was that he was a political genius, it’s interesting to see his cunning plan to defeat the BNP. As his far saner namesake shows, urging people to vote for anyone else sure covers a lot of ground. More to the point, here's a party that markets itself as the natural home for people left on the kerb by the political establishment - calling for the formation of a cartel is not the obvious way to undercut their message, the more so when it involves coddling up to Communists, Islamofascists and stoners.
Of course this sort of thing has quite a track record. Following July 7, we were told that we had to understand the root causes but now, faced with the prospect of people voting in a way they disapprove of, the self-same people are starting to sound like Little Green Footballs commentors. So, let’s just check the scorecard here: mass slaughter requires understanding, voting the wrong way deserves carpet bombing. It makes perfect sense!
For the record , I think prophecies of a breakthrough for those of a BNP tendency are overblown – just like the last 3000 times Liberals have raised that bogeyman. Nevertheless, something is happening, just not what Liberals say it is.
Liberals claim that folks opposed to immigration are all secretly obsessed with racial purity, but the wheels have come off ever since half the population of Gdansk moved here. The Poles have suffered a lot, but no one ever accused them of having a natural sense of rhythm.
The flip side of that is that Britons of Indian descent are now supporting the BNP. At one level that’s insane. After all, the BNP is the natural home of the Dulux Warriors – folks who want to run round the country with colour charts checking who’s really British and who’s only pretending (and I don’t think grandparents in Madras really help). On another level though, it makes perfect sense.
Suppose your dad came to this country and worked sixty hour weeks as, say, a postman. You yourself have dedicated years to the long and arduous process of becoming a neurosurgeon, now the Liberals not only want to bleed you dry to pay for free houses for some ‘splodey dope from South Yemen, but they think you should be happy to support Islamoloons because, hey, you’re all the same, right ?
Seems to me that all the talk of race is coming from one side of the political divide. Opposing giving free money to any maroon who can make it through the channel tunnel is no more evidence of racial prejudice than opposing agricultural policies is evidence of an unhinged hatred of farmers.
This is the thing, of course. Liberals are so keen to talk about race not only because forty years of monopoly control of the institutions has left them barely capable of anything else, but also because the debate brings into question some other Liberal sacred cows.
Inusrance companies well understand the phenomenom of ‘moral hazard’. Basically, this is the idea that if your pride and joy is insured, then you take less care where you park it than if you had to buy a replacement yourself. But the welfare state goes one better. If insurance worked like the DSS, then you’d be able to firebomb your own Fiat and get a BMW delivered the next day. That’s always been the problem with the welfare state or, more particularly, with the Liberal insistence that payouts be based on (perceived) need, but it has been thrown into sharp relief by folks running off the plane at Heathrow shouting ‘Show me the money!’. We’re told, for example, that immigrants get first choice of social housing because their bigger families means they’re in greater need, to which I reply ‘So ?’ Anyone who moves somewhere else ‘needs’ a house. Enough with the ‘need’, how about we start talking about ‘desert’ ?
But there’s a wider issue here than just the financial. Most people would find the kind of two-faced whining here nauseating, yet it’s the perfect example of what Liberals mean by citizenship. Just as when Liberal talk about helping ‘working families’ they mean non-families where no one works, so any talk of social responsibility means taxing the productive to pay for freebies for their clients. The idea that citizens have actual responsibilities to the nation (emphatically not the same as the state) ? Forget it. Again, this was always an underlying theme in Liberalism, but a terrorist demanding the British government rescue him from the consequences of waging war on Britain sure rams the point home.
Equally, when L3 top brass suddenly claim that large parts of Britain have too many native Britons, they’re simply making explicit the hatred of Britain that has always been a key part of Liberalism.
Immigration is an important issue – perhaps the issue – but it’s not the whole issue. That thing again, the Culture War. Immigration policy shows us the Britain Liberals seek to create. That’s why people object, not because of some insane obsession with racial purity, and that’s why Liberals call them racists, because to engage with their objections would mean admitting to the true nature of Liberalism. As ever, Conservatives are weird and nasty, but it’s Liberals who won’t give you a straight answer as to what they believe.
Of course this sort of thing has quite a track record. Following July 7, we were told that we had to understand the root causes but now, faced with the prospect of people voting in a way they disapprove of, the self-same people are starting to sound like Little Green Footballs commentors. So, let’s just check the scorecard here: mass slaughter requires understanding, voting the wrong way deserves carpet bombing. It makes perfect sense!
For the record , I think prophecies of a breakthrough for those of a BNP tendency are overblown – just like the last 3000 times Liberals have raised that bogeyman. Nevertheless, something is happening, just not what Liberals say it is.
Liberals claim that folks opposed to immigration are all secretly obsessed with racial purity, but the wheels have come off ever since half the population of Gdansk moved here. The Poles have suffered a lot, but no one ever accused them of having a natural sense of rhythm.
The flip side of that is that Britons of Indian descent are now supporting the BNP. At one level that’s insane. After all, the BNP is the natural home of the Dulux Warriors – folks who want to run round the country with colour charts checking who’s really British and who’s only pretending (and I don’t think grandparents in Madras really help). On another level though, it makes perfect sense.
Suppose your dad came to this country and worked sixty hour weeks as, say, a postman. You yourself have dedicated years to the long and arduous process of becoming a neurosurgeon, now the Liberals not only want to bleed you dry to pay for free houses for some ‘splodey dope from South Yemen, but they think you should be happy to support Islamoloons because, hey, you’re all the same, right ?
Seems to me that all the talk of race is coming from one side of the political divide. Opposing giving free money to any maroon who can make it through the channel tunnel is no more evidence of racial prejudice than opposing agricultural policies is evidence of an unhinged hatred of farmers.
This is the thing, of course. Liberals are so keen to talk about race not only because forty years of monopoly control of the institutions has left them barely capable of anything else, but also because the debate brings into question some other Liberal sacred cows.
Inusrance companies well understand the phenomenom of ‘moral hazard’. Basically, this is the idea that if your pride and joy is insured, then you take less care where you park it than if you had to buy a replacement yourself. But the welfare state goes one better. If insurance worked like the DSS, then you’d be able to firebomb your own Fiat and get a BMW delivered the next day. That’s always been the problem with the welfare state or, more particularly, with the Liberal insistence that payouts be based on (perceived) need, but it has been thrown into sharp relief by folks running off the plane at Heathrow shouting ‘Show me the money!’. We’re told, for example, that immigrants get first choice of social housing because their bigger families means they’re in greater need, to which I reply ‘So ?’ Anyone who moves somewhere else ‘needs’ a house. Enough with the ‘need’, how about we start talking about ‘desert’ ?
But there’s a wider issue here than just the financial. Most people would find the kind of two-faced whining here nauseating, yet it’s the perfect example of what Liberals mean by citizenship. Just as when Liberal talk about helping ‘working families’ they mean non-families where no one works, so any talk of social responsibility means taxing the productive to pay for freebies for their clients. The idea that citizens have actual responsibilities to the nation (emphatically not the same as the state) ? Forget it. Again, this was always an underlying theme in Liberalism, but a terrorist demanding the British government rescue him from the consequences of waging war on Britain sure rams the point home.
Equally, when L3 top brass suddenly claim that large parts of Britain have too many native Britons, they’re simply making explicit the hatred of Britain that has always been a key part of Liberalism.
Immigration is an important issue – perhaps the issue – but it’s not the whole issue. That thing again, the Culture War. Immigration policy shows us the Britain Liberals seek to create. That’s why people object, not because of some insane obsession with racial purity, and that’s why Liberals call them racists, because to engage with their objections would mean admitting to the true nature of Liberalism. As ever, Conservatives are weird and nasty, but it’s Liberals who won’t give you a straight answer as to what they believe.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Multiculturalism Latest
How low can the L3 go ? Well, this low actually:
Those of us who hate multiculturalism are often denounced as racists by the L3, but look what's happening here. The 'racist right' want child abuse treated as a serious crime under all circumstances, but the L3 (and never has the phrase Loony Left Liberal been so apt) claim that it's serious if it's a native child, but if it the progeny of some fourth worlders, well, hey, it's just a wacky faux pas, so slap on the wrist, and no hard feelings. Consider this, if you were a hardcore white racist, just how would your position differ from that of the Left ?
That's the X-factor behind the BNP's recent rise to prominence. If you're going to call people Nazis for being sickened at the sight of the courts doing all but giving group hugs to child abusers, then don't be surprised if they turn to folks like the BNP.
Of course, these cases do seem to happen rather more frequently amongst certain people. Even our Liberal friends have to admit that:
A BANGLADESHI woman who shook a baby boy so violently that he suffered brain damage walked free from court yesterday because a judge conceded that she did not know how to behave in the West.....Yes, she was unfamiliar with our wacky Western customs such as NOT TORTURING OUR KIDS. After all, who's to say that torturing your child is necessarily any worse than not doing so ? Well, actually, just about every worthwhile civilisation that's ever existed. Being sympathetic to child abusers isn't moral relativism, it's moral nihlism. All this Liberal talk of 'tolerance' is just a euphamism for the surrender of every moral precept western civilisation has ever believed in.
The injuries inflicted on the child over several weeks had caused one side of his brain to shrink. It was believed that the boy would have been screaming in agony for eight weeks because his injuries went untreated.
Those of us who hate multiculturalism are often denounced as racists by the L3, but look what's happening here. The 'racist right' want child abuse treated as a serious crime under all circumstances, but the L3 (and never has the phrase Loony Left Liberal been so apt) claim that it's serious if it's a native child, but if it the progeny of some fourth worlders, well, hey, it's just a wacky faux pas, so slap on the wrist, and no hard feelings. Consider this, if you were a hardcore white racist, just how would your position differ from that of the Left ?
That's the X-factor behind the BNP's recent rise to prominence. If you're going to call people Nazis for being sickened at the sight of the courts doing all but giving group hugs to child abusers, then don't be surprised if they turn to folks like the BNP.
Of course, these cases do seem to happen rather more frequently amongst certain people. Even our Liberal friends have to admit that:
The court was told that Khanom, a Muslim, did not understand that shaking a helpless baby would not exorcise an evil spirit.Well, m'kay. Clearly another of those 'highly skilled immigrants' our economy needs. Still, I guess we do have to take into account the fact some people really believe that their baby is possessed by an evil spirit, but can the L3 at least stop yammering about 'Islamophobia' ? If the courts are allowed to take into account the fact Islam drives people to behave like savages even to their own kids, then I don't think it's unreasonable for the rest of us to take note as well.
Liberals Eating Their Own (Part II)
They are simply outraged that the corporation is paying so much money to people who chatter on air between playing records.Well, quite.
Liberals Eating Their Own (Part I)
Lawyers Vs Academics, it's the Culture War equivalent of the Iran-Iraq war.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Schools In Toxic Wasters Shocker
One of the most significant, yet least often mentioned, reasons for Conservative dominance in the 1980s was that large parts of the Left were certifiably insane. Now, under the twin influences of Blairism and anti-psychotics, most of them can at least pass as sane for short periods, but some are still keeping that 80s vibe going. Literally, in some cases: Brian Garvey, president of the NASUWT, has just given a speech denouncing Thatcher.
Why, yes, as it happens the NASUWT is a teaching union. How ever did you guess ?
As far as I can make out, the charge is that bad behavior in British schools is down to Lady Thatcher. Considering that even the oldest students in British schools would have been approximately 3 months old when Lady Thatcher resigned, this makes ‘the dog ate my homework’ sound almost plausible. Needless to say, all the usual clichés are present and correct: ‘legacy of selfishness’, ‘I'm all right Jack" culture’, ….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It’s tempting to mock the sheer insanity of trying to cast the woman who popularized the phrase ‘Victorian values’ as the patron saint of classroom mayhem, but let’s just pretend Garvey’s trainwreck understanding of Thatcherism is correct (while praying that he doesn’t teach history). OK, Mr Liberal, Conservatives are selfish, now how does that lead to people stabbing each other ? I might have missed a page, but I don’t recall knives playing a large part in ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
In so far as these freaks have a point, it’s that teachers have lost respect, but whose fault is that ? They’re trying to claim that British education sucks because of someone who hauled her flag down sixteen years ago and folk don’t respect them ? Sounds like one for Mulder & Scully. Then we get the union general secretary babbling on about the 'scars' of 18 years of Conservative government. Spare us. Folks in the private sector (aka the real world) are stuck dealing with a hostile administration right now, but do you see any of them whining about their ‘scars’ ? But wait…in the private sector you need actual results rather than being able to brush off constant failure with insane arguments about people who quit back when mobile phones were the size of small cars.
Lady Thatcher’s contribution was merely to help expose the double standard by which people in the private sector had to perform to stay employed while public sector professionals could do pretty much whatever they wanted. So now the dirty, drug-sodden, workshy members of our professionally unemployable class are whining about lack of respect ? Personally, I think it speaks well of kids when they can recognise these toxic losers for what they are. They might be young, but they can recognise that if our society is structured such that spending your life wasted and waiting for the revolution, man, means you end up a bitter loser, that's a feature not a bug.
Consider this though: these people insist that they are entitled to a publicly-funded job for life, gold plated pensions and high wages, irrespective of results, all the while claiming the public is too FICK to make any worthwhile judgment on their effectiveness. They claim that even management stopping by to see how they perform is apparently the height of unreasonableness. They issue ranting denunciations of faith schools and the like, all the while claiming that they are being victimized by all and sundry. So, massive sense of entitlement, contempt for the wider society, belief that they should not be subject to any form of authority, unhinged abuse of anyone not conforming to their views and permanent (and ludicrous) sense of grievance. Gosh, can’t see why the kids turn out the way they do!
Why, yes, as it happens the NASUWT is a teaching union. How ever did you guess ?
As far as I can make out, the charge is that bad behavior in British schools is down to Lady Thatcher. Considering that even the oldest students in British schools would have been approximately 3 months old when Lady Thatcher resigned, this makes ‘the dog ate my homework’ sound almost plausible. Needless to say, all the usual clichés are present and correct: ‘legacy of selfishness’, ‘I'm all right Jack" culture’, ….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It’s tempting to mock the sheer insanity of trying to cast the woman who popularized the phrase ‘Victorian values’ as the patron saint of classroom mayhem, but let’s just pretend Garvey’s trainwreck understanding of Thatcherism is correct (while praying that he doesn’t teach history). OK, Mr Liberal, Conservatives are selfish, now how does that lead to people stabbing each other ? I might have missed a page, but I don’t recall knives playing a large part in ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
In so far as these freaks have a point, it’s that teachers have lost respect, but whose fault is that ? They’re trying to claim that British education sucks because of someone who hauled her flag down sixteen years ago and folk don’t respect them ? Sounds like one for Mulder & Scully. Then we get the union general secretary babbling on about the 'scars' of 18 years of Conservative government. Spare us. Folks in the private sector (aka the real world) are stuck dealing with a hostile administration right now, but do you see any of them whining about their ‘scars’ ? But wait…in the private sector you need actual results rather than being able to brush off constant failure with insane arguments about people who quit back when mobile phones were the size of small cars.
Lady Thatcher’s contribution was merely to help expose the double standard by which people in the private sector had to perform to stay employed while public sector professionals could do pretty much whatever they wanted. So now the dirty, drug-sodden, workshy members of our professionally unemployable class are whining about lack of respect ? Personally, I think it speaks well of kids when they can recognise these toxic losers for what they are. They might be young, but they can recognise that if our society is structured such that spending your life wasted and waiting for the revolution, man, means you end up a bitter loser, that's a feature not a bug.
Consider this though: these people insist that they are entitled to a publicly-funded job for life, gold plated pensions and high wages, irrespective of results, all the while claiming the public is too FICK to make any worthwhile judgment on their effectiveness. They claim that even management stopping by to see how they perform is apparently the height of unreasonableness. They issue ranting denunciations of faith schools and the like, all the while claiming that they are being victimized by all and sundry. So, massive sense of entitlement, contempt for the wider society, belief that they should not be subject to any form of authority, unhinged abuse of anyone not conforming to their views and permanent (and ludicrous) sense of grievance. Gosh, can’t see why the kids turn out the way they do!
Monday, April 17, 2006
While We're On The Subject...
The immigration debate is coming to the boil in the US as well. Here's Ann Coulter:
This is the only country on Earth that thinks it's not sporting to consider our own interests in choosing immigrants. Try showing up in any other country on the planet, illiterate and penniless, and announcing: "I've seen pictures of your country and it looks great. I think I'd like to live here! Oh, and by the way, would you mind changing all your government and business phone messages, street signs and ballots into my native language? Thanks!" They would laugh you out of the country.Well, I can think of at least one other. Hell, round here you get to play the asylum version of the Generation Game ('free house, free car, free cuddly toy...'). If the worst comes to the worst and you meet the one immigration tribunal in the country that won't believe that you're being persecuted by the fascist government back home in your native Sweden, well, once you've exhausted your 72 Legal Aid funded appeals, you can always stay on as an illegal. After all, as Mark Steyn reminds us, it's not all bad news:
Here's my immigration "compromise": We need to regularize the situation of the 298 million non-undocumented residents of the United States. Right now, we get a lousy deal compared with the 15 million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented American community. I think the 298 million of us in the overdocumented segment of the population should get the chance to be undocumented. You know when President Bush talks about all those undocumented people "living in the shadows"? Doesn't that sound kinda nice? Living in the shadows, no government agencies harassing you for taxes and numbers and paperwork.
More Of That Liberal Anti-Racism
It’s ‘BNP Week’ in the political world, which means charges of racism will be flying round like MPs on fact-finding tours. Fortunately, an unusual voice has emerged to stand against bogus charges of racism. Yes, indeed, thanks to the BBC and their many generous Liberal commentors, we can now see the list of things that sound like racism, but aren’t.
Of course, there’s no helping some people. Even the first of the victims claims that being abused on grounds of her national origin ‘feels like a kind of racism’. Well, quite. The BBC helpfully points out that she ‘doesn't agree with the war in Iraq and didn't vote for Bush’, thereby subtlety implying that if she did or she had, she’d deserve all she gets. Frankly, that’s a relief. Just last week the L3 were explaining to us that black employees were entitled to wear racist regalia in the workplace, but I like these new rules much better. Now, we can insist blacks disavow drug-dealing, rap music and Ian ‘Moron, Init’ Wright, otherwise all PC bets are off.
But it’s in the comments where the real revelations are (as in the comments hosted by our ultra-sensitive, PC BBC, host of the censorfest that is Don't Have Your Say). Did you know, for example, that it’s OK to hold people responsible for alleged offences carried out by completely different people who are members of the same racial group ?
Once again, remember those people only deserve civilized behavior if they express the right views:
Of course, there’s no helping some people. Even the first of the victims claims that being abused on grounds of her national origin ‘feels like a kind of racism’. Well, quite. The BBC helpfully points out that she ‘doesn't agree with the war in Iraq and didn't vote for Bush’, thereby subtlety implying that if she did or she had, she’d deserve all she gets. Frankly, that’s a relief. Just last week the L3 were explaining to us that black employees were entitled to wear racist regalia in the workplace, but I like these new rules much better. Now, we can insist blacks disavow drug-dealing, rap music and Ian ‘Moron, Init’ Wright, otherwise all PC bets are off.
But it’s in the comments where the real revelations are (as in the comments hosted by our ultra-sensitive, PC BBC, host of the censorfest that is Don't Have Your Say). Did you know, for example, that it’s OK to hold people responsible for alleged offences carried out by completely different people who are members of the same racial group ?
As a Muslim studying abroad I can sympathise with her. However, she has only suffered a black eye and had hurtful words thrown at her, whereas I have family members who are now buried six feet under in Basra due to her government's actions.Oh, yeah, don’t worry if the charge makes no actual sense – like blaming the Americans for what happens in the British sector of Iraq - that still doesn’t make you sound like a bigoted loon.
Ahmed, UK
Once again, remember those people only deserve civilized behavior if they express the right views:
It's very unfortunate that individuals should be singled out like this purely because of where they come from. But I would say to Christian Cox, don't defend Bush if you don't agree with him, and don't express unqualified pride in your country which is - like ours - great, but flawed, and you might get a better reception from most Brits!Besides, the victims probably deserve it anyway:
David Ewen, London
I can understand how upsetting it is for people such as Ms Cox. However, I think Americans need to be educated in such a way that equips them better to travel without appearing to treat to rest of the world like an extension of Disneyland. I frequently hear patronising, insensitive comments made by American tourists who are tarnishing the reputation of their compatriots.As always though, be alert to members of inferior races trying to avoid racist abuse by passing themselves off as humans.
Tom Watson, Rome, Italy
If you suspect your 'Canadian' is actually American, ask them to name three provinces (excluding Ontario). Or ask them what the capital of Saskatchewan is. You'll soon know. (We don't like the either, by the way.)So, there you have it, a license-fee funded look into the world of the anti-racist Left, all courtesy of a company which won’t even call Islamic terrorists 'Islamic terrorists' lest it encourage bigotry against bombers.
Jim Connolly, Toronto, Canada
At Least John Wayne Didn't Demand The Sioux Built Him A House
Trust a Liberal to focus like a laser on the real problem. Margaret Hodge has warned that allowing uncontrolled mass immigration of unassimilatable welfare queens into this country increases support for the BNP. Yes, that’s it. Doubtless, her colleagues in government are busy making preparations for a pandemic of lethal influenza, lest it undermine support for the NHS.
Deftly refuting the stereotype of Liberals as out of touch snobs, Hodge has identified the reason why so many people are turning to the BNP: not enough council houses. All we need to do is build enough houses for the locals and the tidal wave of immigrants pouring into the country (apparently, scrounging off the welfare state is one of those jobs the British just won’t do). Call it a wild guess, but I’m thinking we’ll need a hell of a lot of houses – and a hell of a lot of native British taxpayers to pay for them.
Of course, now our fearless MSM has been given permission to cover the subject, we can now find out just how many houses we’ll need for all these ‘highly-skilled immigrants supporting our high-tech industries’ (who need free houses). We now find out that approximately 8500 Africans alone took up residence in a borough of just 164,000 in one year. Or to put it another way, in five years the ethnic population went from 18% to 30%. And how are they assimilating ? Well, the Spectator’s fearlessness runs out at that point, so we only get vague hints like the observation that our ‘new Britons’ are busily setting up their own shops and churches. Is this immigration or colonisation ?
Not that the locals are worried, no sir. Hodge explains that it’s just the pace of change that’s alarmed the natives. Yes, indeed, if things would slow down so that it was, say, twenty years until native Britons became unwelcome squatters in their own country, why, everything would be just ducky.
So, that’s the answer: keep giving away freebies to any idiot who can make his way to Heathrow and mumble the word 'asylum' but tax the natives even more so that their kids might have a vanishingly small chance of obtaining socialhousing, and also marginally slow down the pace of social collapse. Is it ironic, or just stupid, that a woman calling her party out of touch produces such a profoundly loopy diagnosis ?
Deftly refuting the stereotype of Liberals as out of touch snobs, Hodge has identified the reason why so many people are turning to the BNP: not enough council houses. All we need to do is build enough houses for the locals and the tidal wave of immigrants pouring into the country (apparently, scrounging off the welfare state is one of those jobs the British just won’t do). Call it a wild guess, but I’m thinking we’ll need a hell of a lot of houses – and a hell of a lot of native British taxpayers to pay for them.
Of course, now our fearless MSM has been given permission to cover the subject, we can now find out just how many houses we’ll need for all these ‘highly-skilled immigrants supporting our high-tech industries’ (who need free houses). We now find out that approximately 8500 Africans alone took up residence in a borough of just 164,000 in one year. Or to put it another way, in five years the ethnic population went from 18% to 30%. And how are they assimilating ? Well, the Spectator’s fearlessness runs out at that point, so we only get vague hints like the observation that our ‘new Britons’ are busily setting up their own shops and churches. Is this immigration or colonisation ?
Not that the locals are worried, no sir. Hodge explains that it’s just the pace of change that’s alarmed the natives. Yes, indeed, if things would slow down so that it was, say, twenty years until native Britons became unwelcome squatters in their own country, why, everything would be just ducky.
So, that’s the answer: keep giving away freebies to any idiot who can make his way to Heathrow and mumble the word 'asylum' but tax the natives even more so that their kids might have a vanishingly small chance of obtaining socialhousing, and also marginally slow down the pace of social collapse. Is it ironic, or just stupid, that a woman calling her party out of touch produces such a profoundly loopy diagnosis ?
Thursday, April 13, 2006
But What If He Wanted To Bomb A Football Ground ?
Liberals think that firemen, police officers and soldiers are all shambling thugs. True courage is piously repeating Liberal talking points to general acclaim. The latest winner of the Liberal VC (Vacuous Chatter) is Mr Justice Sullivan, who fearlessly used his position on the High Court to denounce government anti-terror measures – just like the last 600 or so judges. Hey, is the chance of a nice obit in the Guardian really that compelling ?
What gave the bewigged one the chance to take the mike at the Liberal’s one note karaoke was government legislation restricting the right of terrorist suspects to travel abroad. If you didn’t know anything about the law, you could almost think the Libs were making a reasonable point, but I don’t think High Court judges really have this excuse. Mr Justice Sullivan must know that the law already allows the government to withdraw passports from suspected (emphatically not just convicted) footie hooligans – his ‘principled stand’ is nothing of the sort.
The Left is fine with seizing the passports of those who might wreck a foreign pub, but not the passports of those who just want to blow one up. I can’t see this line being a big seller with the man on the clapham omnibus, which may be one reason why Liberals and the MSM have completely ignored the football issue, as though seizing passports without convictions was some crazy idea from out of the blue.
You can draw your own conclusions from the fact Liberals find a law perfectly acceptable right up until it affects the ability of Jihadis to go about their business. What’s more intriguing is Sullivan’s attempt to justify this ruling.
What gave the bewigged one the chance to take the mike at the Liberal’s one note karaoke was government legislation restricting the right of terrorist suspects to travel abroad. If you didn’t know anything about the law, you could almost think the Libs were making a reasonable point, but I don’t think High Court judges really have this excuse. Mr Justice Sullivan must know that the law already allows the government to withdraw passports from suspected (emphatically not just convicted) footie hooligans – his ‘principled stand’ is nothing of the sort.
The Left is fine with seizing the passports of those who might wreck a foreign pub, but not the passports of those who just want to blow one up. I can’t see this line being a big seller with the man on the clapham omnibus, which may be one reason why Liberals and the MSM have completely ignored the football issue, as though seizing passports without convictions was some crazy idea from out of the blue.
You can draw your own conclusions from the fact Liberals find a law perfectly acceptable right up until it affects the ability of Jihadis to go about their business. What’s more intriguing is Sullivan’s attempt to justify this ruling.
[Sullivan] ruled it was "conspicuously unfair" that there was no impartial review of the control orders.‘Unfair’ ? Is this some kind of new legal term ? Sullivan may as well have ruled that ‘Control Order’ is a really ugly name. Meanwhile, the nation waits with baited breath for Sullivan’s ruling on the fairness of July 7.
Although there was nothing technically wrong with the control order, he said the review process revealed the "thin veneer of legality" of the government's anti-terrorism laws.Isn’t that just great ? Even Sullivan admits there’s nothing actually wrong with the laws, but he wants to strike them down anyway. Call me old fashioned, but if Sullivan feels so deeply that our current system is so ‘unfair’, he should do the decent thing, and resign to campaign against these laws. Of course, that might force to make actual arguments, and it wouldn’t allow him to be lauded as a hero merely for regurgitating Liberal talking points with a silly wig on. That’s the bottom line. Whether you hate Blair or loathe him, at least he is answerable to the public in at least some respects. The courts ? Forget it – it’s a Liberal Fantasy Island where all the legislation they couldn’t get through Parliament magically becomes a ‘human right’.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Why Liberal Educrats Are Like Vampires
The NUT conference might have been dominated by Liberals ranting about faith schools but, proving once again the Educrats’ famous commitment to diversity, the ATL conference has been dominated by Liberals ranting about faith schools. For a guy they claim doesn’t exist, God sure annoys Liberals.
In fairness to the ATL, at least some of their delegates saw a certain problem in their position:
What it’s about, of course, is getting out from under those pesky objective standards. After all, teaching kids actual knowledge runs the risk of someone testing them to find out how much they’ve actually learnt. Much safer to spend time on happy-clappy ‘skill development’.
It’s no wonder these people are desperate to nobble faith schools. With great minds like this running our state schools, they sure can’t compete against faith schools in a fair contest.
In fairness to the ATL, at least some of their delegates saw a certain problem in their position:
Teachers are calling on the government to end all state funding for newly created faith schools by 2020.Well, quite. It’s hard (i.e. impossible) to imagine a conference of churchmen being dominated by folks ranting about non-faith schools. The hate is all coming from one side of the debate.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers' annual conference heard they could be "an assault on tolerance".
But some delegates in the conference hall at Gateshead said the ATL's motion was itself intolerant.
Hank Roberts, from Brent in London, who proposed the motion, said: "Massive forces and billions of pounds are being mobilised and spent in a worldwide assault on tolerance, secular education and scientific rationality."Run for your lives! The Christians are coming! Pretty soon, they’ll be no chance of our kids getting the kind of enlightened, rational education where they don’t actually learn anything. When Liberals start talking about their desire to serve the needs of employers, it’s time to put the waders on – it’s soon going to be waist deep (not that a bunch of drug sodden dropouts who’ve never held a real job in their lives aren’t just the perfect people to decide what business really needs).
What it’s about, of course, is getting out from under those pesky objective standards. After all, teaching kids actual knowledge runs the risk of someone testing them to find out how much they’ve actually learnt. Much safer to spend time on happy-clappy ‘skill development’.
It’s no wonder these people are desperate to nobble faith schools. With great minds like this running our state schools, they sure can’t compete against faith schools in a fair contest.
Liberal Tells Truth Shocker!
See, this is how I get confused. Via e-mail (Thanks, SM), I find out that the government is apparently clamping down on racial abuse, except in the comments on this post, Joe reminds us that it's apparently it’s no big thing after all. It’s a mystery all right!
As it happens, DSD has identified another of these mysterious cases. Fortunately, he has a fan who can explain it all. It goes against the grain to say something nice about a Leftist, but at least the guy is remarkably upfront about what Liberals really believe about racial issues. Normally, these guys would rather drink battery acid than tell the truth about what they believe.
It takes sodium penthol to get a Liberal to admit that when social workers left Victoria Climbe to die, they were doing no more than following the tenets of multiculturalism, most of all, the insane belief that if Africans – even ones living in Britain – want to torture their kids over a period of months, well, who are we to say that’s necessarily wrong ?
Now, Liberals have gone further than mere multiculturalism. Insane though this doctrine was, you could almost recognise it as a warped mutation of a belief in racial equality. But now ? Equality has been thrown overboard; now the world is divided into oppressors and oppressed based purely on racial classification. So black Premiership players are oppressed, while white guys selling ‘The Big Issue’ are oppressors. Obvious, init ? Whites have the racial equivalent of original sin, meanwhile almost any form of social pathology exhibited by a black guy has to be excused because they’re victims. Bluurgh!
There are approximately 2 billion things wrong with this argument, but just to expand on an obvious one that I pointed out in the comments to that post, here we have a group of people who claim that their victim status means they don’t have to conform to the demands of normal society, then whine that they’re marginalized. Huh ? Are we supposed to be shocked that, say, employers tend to go for people who don’t claim the right to wear racist regalia in the workplace ?
But mentioning the specific idiocies of this argument risks obscuring the more basic insanity. Liberals claim to abhor racial prejudice, but consider where that word comes from. Ah yes, the praejudicium, the Roman pre-trial hearing held to determine the ranks of the contending parties. Now, we have Liberals insisting that we can’t judge people merely based on trivia like who they are, no, we have to take into account their racial rank. Meanwhile, it's the racists who want people judged on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin. So, is screaming racist abuse a good or a bad thing ? Well, that depends who’s doing it.
As it happens, DSD has identified another of these mysterious cases. Fortunately, he has a fan who can explain it all. It goes against the grain to say something nice about a Leftist, but at least the guy is remarkably upfront about what Liberals really believe about racial issues. Normally, these guys would rather drink battery acid than tell the truth about what they believe.
It takes sodium penthol to get a Liberal to admit that when social workers left Victoria Climbe to die, they were doing no more than following the tenets of multiculturalism, most of all, the insane belief that if Africans – even ones living in Britain – want to torture their kids over a period of months, well, who are we to say that’s necessarily wrong ?
Now, Liberals have gone further than mere multiculturalism. Insane though this doctrine was, you could almost recognise it as a warped mutation of a belief in racial equality. But now ? Equality has been thrown overboard; now the world is divided into oppressors and oppressed based purely on racial classification. So black Premiership players are oppressed, while white guys selling ‘The Big Issue’ are oppressors. Obvious, init ? Whites have the racial equivalent of original sin, meanwhile almost any form of social pathology exhibited by a black guy has to be excused because they’re victims. Bluurgh!
There are approximately 2 billion things wrong with this argument, but just to expand on an obvious one that I pointed out in the comments to that post, here we have a group of people who claim that their victim status means they don’t have to conform to the demands of normal society, then whine that they’re marginalized. Huh ? Are we supposed to be shocked that, say, employers tend to go for people who don’t claim the right to wear racist regalia in the workplace ?
But mentioning the specific idiocies of this argument risks obscuring the more basic insanity. Liberals claim to abhor racial prejudice, but consider where that word comes from. Ah yes, the praejudicium, the Roman pre-trial hearing held to determine the ranks of the contending parties. Now, we have Liberals insisting that we can’t judge people merely based on trivia like who they are, no, we have to take into account their racial rank. Meanwhile, it's the racists who want people judged on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin. So, is screaming racist abuse a good or a bad thing ? Well, that depends who’s doing it.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Insane Cult Threatens British Education
Ignoring such trivia as rampant illiteracy, endemic violence and industrial scale drug abuse, the NUT conference will concentrate on the real threat to British education: faith schools – just like every other year.
There is "enormous concern" among teachers and parents at the influence of some religious "fundamentalists" on education, a union leader says.Yet, strangely, despite this enormous concern, it’s the faith schools that are over-subscribed and Nelson Mandela Comp that’s emptying out faster than the Tony Blair Fan Club. Not that that’s got anything to do with the educrats monomaniac hatred of these institutions, obviously.
National Union of Teachers general secretary Steve Sinnott said there was a view that faith groups could damage social cohesion.Call it a wild shot in the dark, but I’d guess that if these people spent less time dribbling on about social cohesion and more time actually teaching, parents wouldn’t be queuing up for faith schools in the first place. Even the NUTs can’t deny the popularity of these schools, that’s why they have to resort to argument by innuendo:
It focused on the influence of groups with "views on religion "outside the mainstream - sometimes described as fundamentalist"…..Curse those non-mainstream people and their narrow views! We need to leave education in the hands of the perfectly representative people running state schools, y’know, people like this:
Some school sponsors - "because they have millions of pounds they wish to spend on education" - could "present to youngsters in the classroom their prejudice and their narrow views on religion
A judge who said a legal case against a 10-year-old boy over alleged racism was "political correctness gone mad" has been criticised by a teaching union….Except, of course, that the issue wasn’t dealt with in school at all, otherwise it would never have come before the court. But leave that aside, and think about the degree of chutzpah required for people who believe 10 year olds should be charged with thought crimes to call other people ‘fundamentalists’. That’s the bottom line here. Faith schools aren’t so popular just because people want a specifically religious education; they also have one other great advantage: they also keep kids as far away as possible from L3 fanatics like Elderkin.
Judith Elderkin, NUT National Executive member, said the judge should have taken the allegation of racism more seriously.
She added that she thought he was "out of date" with the way issues are dealt with in schools today.
Tories Come Out Of The Closet
The latest news from Opus Dave is that they’ve decided prison doesn’t work. Add that to their embrace of the Michael Moore tendency, as evidenced by their tacit endorsement of the rampaging loons during Condi’s visit, their weak as water opposition to ID cards and their bizarre attempt to cast opposition to the Common European Light Bulb as tantamount to being a Nazi, and the question has to be asked: in what sense are these people actually Conservative ?
It’s tempting to blame all this on the Manchurian Candidate, but look at the history of the Tories. Even under their most Thatcherite leaders – Thatcher, for example – the Tories barely waged the Culture War. Maybe all Cameron has done differently is come out of the closet ? That’s why the dominant emotion on hearing Cameron’s rantings on, say, UKIP isn’t anger, it’s relief. Now at least we all know where we stand.
It’s tempting to blame all this on the Manchurian Candidate, but look at the history of the Tories. Even under their most Thatcherite leaders – Thatcher, for example – the Tories barely waged the Culture War. Maybe all Cameron has done differently is come out of the closet ? That’s why the dominant emotion on hearing Cameron’s rantings on, say, UKIP isn’t anger, it’s relief. Now at least we all know where we stand.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Silence Of The Libs
At last, we've found a young offender Liberals believe should be prosecuted. So what's turned the folks who wanted the Bulger killers all but given a caution into Judge Dredd with OCD ? Need you ask.
See, this is what I keep saying. The Liberal's supposed opposition to authoritarianism is purely tactical. They don't believe we should enforce laws they disagree with, but if it's their ox that's being gored, well, public execution isn't out of the question.
See, this is what I keep saying. The Liberal's supposed opposition to authoritarianism is purely tactical. They don't believe we should enforce laws they disagree with, but if it's their ox that's being gored, well, public execution isn't out of the question.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Foxes Meet To Discuss Henhouse Security
Today was the day Princess Tony met the Manchurian Candidate to discuss party funding. I haven’t heard any reports of the meeting, but I’ll take a wild shot in the dark as to the conclusion: both parties are bent as a £7 note so the only answer is to give them huge amounts of public money, presumably with a small sum set aside to investigate why people are so cynical about politics. Maybe they should remind people that if it wasn’t for Big Government people in businesses would be able to get together to rip off the public ?
Still, there’s something weird in finding out just how dependent the ‘People’s Party’ is on filthy lucre from millionaires. Then again, what’s with a Party that supposedly represents low tax and personal responsibility getting behind massive bailout for a failing nationalised industry ? Right for Scotland explains what’s going on. The delightful duopoly have so successfully alienated just about everyone in the country with a real job that few people see any ideological reason to support them. Hence, it’s all about payback.
Needless to say, this has passed the MSM by. Of course. The MSM exists in the self-same bubble as the politicians, they never meet any normal people either. Equally, it was the MSM that started this sudden demand for cash in the first place. Seriously, has any sane person ever changed their vote through seeing a party leader being serenaded by twenty-six dwarfs ? Nope, these insane photo ops are all about appealing to the jaded hacks in the MSM, with the public as bemused onlookers.
It was only recently that I realised what this reminded me of. Here, we have the MSM breathlessly reporting on a bunch of vacuous Metropolitan weenies, while the public at large ignores them completely. The MSM keeps telling us how brilliant they are, and the public keep spending their money somewhere – anywhere – else, so naturally these people demand huge quantities of public money so they can keep on producing their self-indulgent garbage. No wonder politicians get on so well with movie people. No wonder the parties are so brokeback.
So now we have Nu Lab in favour of the redistribution of wealth from the poor to ad agencies, while the Tories claim people choosing who to give money to is undemocratic. The argument goes that if we don’t give these low-life huge amounts of public money, they’ll take industrial quantities of bribes. I’m not sure when being unbelievably corrupt became an argument for being trusted with public money. Speaking personally, I favour an alternative way to deal with rampant bribery, the method used in every other sector in Britain. Not only would this clean up politics, it would also reduce other forms of crime. After all, what better deterrent could there be than the possibility of having David Cameron as a cell mate ?
Still, there’s something weird in finding out just how dependent the ‘People’s Party’ is on filthy lucre from millionaires. Then again, what’s with a Party that supposedly represents low tax and personal responsibility getting behind massive bailout for a failing nationalised industry ? Right for Scotland explains what’s going on. The delightful duopoly have so successfully alienated just about everyone in the country with a real job that few people see any ideological reason to support them. Hence, it’s all about payback.
Needless to say, this has passed the MSM by. Of course. The MSM exists in the self-same bubble as the politicians, they never meet any normal people either. Equally, it was the MSM that started this sudden demand for cash in the first place. Seriously, has any sane person ever changed their vote through seeing a party leader being serenaded by twenty-six dwarfs ? Nope, these insane photo ops are all about appealing to the jaded hacks in the MSM, with the public as bemused onlookers.
It was only recently that I realised what this reminded me of. Here, we have the MSM breathlessly reporting on a bunch of vacuous Metropolitan weenies, while the public at large ignores them completely. The MSM keeps telling us how brilliant they are, and the public keep spending their money somewhere – anywhere – else, so naturally these people demand huge quantities of public money so they can keep on producing their self-indulgent garbage. No wonder politicians get on so well with movie people. No wonder the parties are so brokeback.
So now we have Nu Lab in favour of the redistribution of wealth from the poor to ad agencies, while the Tories claim people choosing who to give money to is undemocratic. The argument goes that if we don’t give these low-life huge amounts of public money, they’ll take industrial quantities of bribes. I’m not sure when being unbelievably corrupt became an argument for being trusted with public money. Speaking personally, I favour an alternative way to deal with rampant bribery, the method used in every other sector in Britain. Not only would this clean up politics, it would also reduce other forms of crime. After all, what better deterrent could there be than the possibility of having David Cameron as a cell mate ?
Sunday, April 02, 2006
It's National Socialism
Also hitting the nail on the head is DSD when he points out an odd political fact: Nick Griffin's latest manoeuvre means that the head of the BNP has denounced anti-Semitism far more forcefully than 90% of the Left (and let’s not even mention Cuddly Ken ‘Jews Go Home!’ Livingstone).
Of course, like DSD, I suspect it’s all BS, but isn’t that significant in and off itself ? The media’s favourite example of a ‘far right’ politician perceives a political advantage in coming out against Judenhass. What does that say about the Right ? And what does it say about the ‘tolerant’ Left that it’s hard to think of a prominent Leftist who has made a similar statement ?
Of course, like DSD, I suspect it’s all BS, but isn’t that significant in and off itself ? The media’s favourite example of a ‘far right’ politician perceives a political advantage in coming out against Judenhass. What does that say about the Right ? And what does it say about the ‘tolerant’ Left that it’s hard to think of a prominent Leftist who has made a similar statement ?
Seal Off The Borders
The blogosphere is abuzz with news of Border’s collapse to the Islamopaths. Actually, it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. Consider their previous surrenders over the Satanic Verses and the positioning of the Koran (really!).
There’s a certain logic to Border’s move, of course. It’s that old thing about risk vs reward. Border’s face the risk of enraged Islamopaths vs the (short-term) reward of knocking out a few copies of a reasonably obscure magazine. Put that way, it sounds like an easy (if hardly inspiring) decision.
This is back to something I was writing about a few days ago. Our supposedly hip’n’happening intellectual classes extol the virtues of both multiculturalism and the market. Well, this is what happens when this type of thinking is allowed to predominate free of any higher principles. Everyone agrees that free speech is kind of important, but no one will be the one to actually defend it. It’s the culture war's very own Prisoner’s Dilemma.
So how do we get out of this ? Actually, it seems like we’re already making a start. While bombings get the headlines, most companies fold because they’re faced with the prospect of Islamopath boycotts and the like. On the other hand, if they surrender, all that’ll happen is that most people will be disgusted but won’t feel they can do much about it. Except now we’re online, we can see that there are plenty of other people who share our disgust. MSM to the contary, there are plenty of folks out there who’ve had it up to here with Islamopaths and their dhimmi enablers.
If all companies can understand is the bottom line, then that’s where we have to hit them. Hey – it’s not even a matter of principle: the whole advantage of Borders vs You-Know-Who is that you can browse around and maybe find something new. Now, it turns out you can browse around and find something new, providing the local Mullah doesn’t object to it. Who needs that ? So yay for the boycott. Who’d have thought you’d be able to help defend Western Civilisation by clicking here ?
There’s a certain logic to Border’s move, of course. It’s that old thing about risk vs reward. Border’s face the risk of enraged Islamopaths vs the (short-term) reward of knocking out a few copies of a reasonably obscure magazine. Put that way, it sounds like an easy (if hardly inspiring) decision.
This is back to something I was writing about a few days ago. Our supposedly hip’n’happening intellectual classes extol the virtues of both multiculturalism and the market. Well, this is what happens when this type of thinking is allowed to predominate free of any higher principles. Everyone agrees that free speech is kind of important, but no one will be the one to actually defend it. It’s the culture war's very own Prisoner’s Dilemma.
So how do we get out of this ? Actually, it seems like we’re already making a start. While bombings get the headlines, most companies fold because they’re faced with the prospect of Islamopath boycotts and the like. On the other hand, if they surrender, all that’ll happen is that most people will be disgusted but won’t feel they can do much about it. Except now we’re online, we can see that there are plenty of other people who share our disgust. MSM to the contary, there are plenty of folks out there who’ve had it up to here with Islamopaths and their dhimmi enablers.
If all companies can understand is the bottom line, then that’s where we have to hit them. Hey – it’s not even a matter of principle: the whole advantage of Borders vs You-Know-Who is that you can browse around and maybe find something new. Now, it turns out you can browse around and find something new, providing the local Mullah doesn’t object to it. Who needs that ? So yay for the boycott. Who’d have thought you’d be able to help defend Western Civilisation by clicking here ?
It's Not About The Science
Devil’s Kitchen takes the words right out of my mouth when it comes to medics who proclaim themselves shocked – shocked! – by the coming measles epidemic. It really is more than flesh and blood can stand hearing these folks taking out an onion for all those crippled kids while they themselves had blocked one of the primary means of preventing the epidemic.
Sure, there are some anti-vaccination kooks who just plain don’t like the whole scheme, but there are a hell of a lot more parents who were/are worried about the MMR vaccine in particular. Not only did the government not give these parents the option of single jabs, they actually went out of their way to nobble those clinics which did offer these jabs – and yes, the scientific establishment was 100% behind them. See, that’s the problem right there. Measles is that bad, so surely almost any counter-measure must be justifiable ? But no, they theytell us that the single jabs are expensive, have lower efficacy, take up more medical time…..
Hang on a minute. These people just got through telling us how awful measles was – against that background, surely their reasons for refusing to deploy the single vaccine seem distinctly anorexic ?
The real reason why these people will not countenance deployment of the single vaccines is given away by one of DK’s commentors when he claims that ‘The media stoked a frenzy for their own dubious interests, the job then fell on the NHS to crush it, not pander to it.’ Huh ? Ever since Wakefield’s report came out the scientific establishment has been trying to ‘crush’ this issue. Less crushing and more science might have saved us all a lot of trouble.
The clue is that, as ever, when these people say ‘media’ they mean ‘public’. This debate was about who runs science. Almost from day one, this issue was perceived as the Dien Bien Phu of the science wars. This was the issue the scientists would use to crush those interlopers and their talk of ‘oversight’, ‘accountability’ and the like.
Having kids die or be crippled by measles is one thing, but public scrutiny ? Now that’s terrifying. Even now, the scientific establishment could yet save lives, if only they would demand deployment of the single vaccine, but they won’t. More than that, having stood aside and let it happen, they’ll wave the bloody shirt to ‘prove’ the dangers of public accountability. That’s how utterly detached these people are from reality. They’ll exploit a hideous disease and the death and mutilation of children to try and prove that we should…. trust them ?
What have they been injecting ?
Sure, there are some anti-vaccination kooks who just plain don’t like the whole scheme, but there are a hell of a lot more parents who were/are worried about the MMR vaccine in particular. Not only did the government not give these parents the option of single jabs, they actually went out of their way to nobble those clinics which did offer these jabs – and yes, the scientific establishment was 100% behind them. See, that’s the problem right there. Measles is that bad, so surely almost any counter-measure must be justifiable ? But no, they theytell us that the single jabs are expensive, have lower efficacy, take up more medical time…..
Hang on a minute. These people just got through telling us how awful measles was – against that background, surely their reasons for refusing to deploy the single vaccine seem distinctly anorexic ?
The real reason why these people will not countenance deployment of the single vaccines is given away by one of DK’s commentors when he claims that ‘The media stoked a frenzy for their own dubious interests, the job then fell on the NHS to crush it, not pander to it.’ Huh ? Ever since Wakefield’s report came out the scientific establishment has been trying to ‘crush’ this issue. Less crushing and more science might have saved us all a lot of trouble.
The clue is that, as ever, when these people say ‘media’ they mean ‘public’. This debate was about who runs science. Almost from day one, this issue was perceived as the Dien Bien Phu of the science wars. This was the issue the scientists would use to crush those interlopers and their talk of ‘oversight’, ‘accountability’ and the like.
Having kids die or be crippled by measles is one thing, but public scrutiny ? Now that’s terrifying. Even now, the scientific establishment could yet save lives, if only they would demand deployment of the single vaccine, but they won’t. More than that, having stood aside and let it happen, they’ll wave the bloody shirt to ‘prove’ the dangers of public accountability. That’s how utterly detached these people are from reality. They’ll exploit a hideous disease and the death and mutilation of children to try and prove that we should…. trust them ?
What have they been injecting ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)