Wednesday, February 28, 2007

One For The Philosophers

In the comments to this post, ‘Guardian Apostate’ points out C4’s ‘Shameless’ as a great example of the MSM pushing dysfunction. Funnily enough, I thought of that, but I don’t think it’s as bad as ‘Torchwood’ simply because it at least has some kind of plot and decent writing. On the other hand though, maybe that’s worse – it’s slick and well-written propagandising for social chaos. So there's the question: which is morally worse ? A completely worthless piece of junk, whose sole distinction is its relentless depiction of borderline sociopathic behaviour as normal, or a brilliantly produced piece of work with many admirable qualities which, by the by, does an excellent job of promoting such pathologies ?

Beats me, I’m just waiting for the MSM to carry something really alternative and subversive, you know, like a series depicting a functional traditional family, a successful and well-adjusted businessman or a Christian who isn’t a serial-killing pervert.

Even More Vibrancy

More evidence of the type of culture the Left thinks we need more of. Feeling enriched yet ?

Still, the MSM knows what the real problem is:

In the latest case highlighting how conservative customs threaten women’s rights in Pakistan...

The 'Animal House' Approach To Immigration

For further evidence in support of my rule that while most Rightists have at least some idea of what Liberals believe, Leftists don’t have a clue about the Right, consider Gordon Broon’s latest Big Idea. Ah yes. So now the few doctors who’ve survived the purges will be forced to pick up litter. Come to think of it, for the sake of Mr Broon’s absurd argument, would retiring Gurkas wanting to take up residence also be forced to perform some service to this country ?

Ok, so talking about this policy is kind of like talking about what I’d do if Uma Thurman knocked on my door demanding a night of passion.. Both are about as likely to happen, but still, this does give some insight into how deranged the Left’s view of the Right actually is.

The Left views a British passport as a fundamental human right, and so Conservatives are elitist meanies trying to deprive folk of their birthright just because. Forget discussing issues like social cohesion, infrastructure and the like: we’re just a group of elitist frat boys who don’t want to let people into our house. Ergo, Broon’s Big Idea, an equivalent to fraternity pledging (and if his next announcement is that new male immigrants will have to spend a week dressed up in women’s clothing, that’ll just confirm it).

To say that Broon’s policy misses the point is to say that the Titanic’s maiden voyage wasn’t 100% successful. In so far as ‘Project Broon’ seems best designed to alienate the people we need, while having the least possible effect on the wasters we’re already getting, it’s the perfect example of what it is that the Right really objects to.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Saving The Planet With Bad TV

Via the comments at B-BBC, we learn that even the BBC isn’t taking its rhetoric on glabal warming seriously.

Liberal Tolerance And Other Frauds

Much Liberal multiculturalism is fundamentally based on a fraud. Liberals claim constantly that all cultures are equal, but much of their soi dissant tolerance is predicated on the idea that all that talk of slaughtering Infidels is just a rhetorical flourish. The winner of ‘Best in Show’ for this tendency was US Senator Patty Murray’s claim that Bin Laden’s popularity in the Arab world was based on his hard work building day care centres. Yep, if there’s one thing Al-Quida stands for, it’s helping out those mothers trying to juggle bringing up baby with life as a busy executive.

In so far as even basic education of women was banned under the Taliban, Senator Murray’s arguments cross the line from merely stupid to contemptible, but they do serve the underline the essentially fraudulent nature of the Liberal claim to respect other cultures. They respect these cultures only in so far as they blind themselves to their true nature. Any suggestion that, say, Islam might differ in some respects from Liberalism is denounced as ‘Islamophobia’. Never mind the insanity, where’s the tolerance in supporting people who you think are just like you anyway ?

Meanwhile, the Right at least does the Islamopaths the courtesy of believing what they say. All of which is by way of saying read on and see just what Liberals think we need more of in this country.

Selling Sleaze

US uber-blogger Ace points out the humbuggery inherent in an ’Indie’ movie world which worships at the altar of radical innovation, even while drowning in its own clichés. It’s the same kind of annoying as hearing campus Lefties pay fulsome tribute to their own heroism in denouncing Blair.

Still, that set me to thinking about one of the media clichés I most despise, namely the fetishisation of the dysfunctional. What is it that convinces media luvvies that they can get away with filling the scripts with trite 2D caricatures, providing the characters are hooked on crack, insane, terrorists or some other version of scum ? Take 2006’s worst show ‘Torchwood’. Here was a group of stereotypical charcters presented with no back story at all but, hey, they were constantly banging each other, so that’s nearly the same as depth.

There’s more to it than just bad television though. Consider this point:

Tonight’s the night Hollywood takes a break from disclaiming responsibility for any of the culture’s ills to congratulate itself for having so much influence over the culture.
We’ve had at least thirty years of the media portraying the violent, the depraved and the just plain crazy as more lifey, more sparky, just plain more authentic than people with actual jobs. Plus, we’ve had the Yang to that Yin, with movies like ‘American Beauty’ depicting normality as the worst fate that can possibly befall anyone. Are we really sure that there’s no connection between this phenomenon and the chaotic lives of the underclass as chronicled by folks like PC DC ?

Friday, February 23, 2007

Someone Should Have Said

Further evidence for my theory that you could run a whole blog just dedicated to examples of Liberals breathlessly reporting stuff that Conservatives have been saying for years. Of course, we'd take the Left more seriously on this issue if their determination to talk dirty to kids hadn't proved too much even for some teachers.

It Is A Real Science, I Tell You

What can you say ?

A bogus forensic psychologist who supplied evidence in hundreds of court cases has been jailed for five years....

The court heard Morrison was paid at least £250,000 in taxpayers' money for giving apparently expert advice, but had actually bought his qualifications from a sham university...

Judge Lewis said: "Your activities in various ways struck at the heart of the judicial process."

Hey, if the 'judicial process' is prepared to admit evidence so ropey that it takes thirty years for anyone to tell the difference between an expert in the field and a fraud, maybe a stake to the heart is long overdue.

Whining Liberals

Is there any other kind ?

Apparently, the phenomenon of Leftists getting a pounding in the Blogosphere then squealing and demanding regulation isn’t just a British thing.

Right-Wing Maniacs Battle Capitalist Pigs

It baffles me why the Daily Mail is such a totemic hate symbol for the Left. Its coverage of the War is on the far side of loony, but even on domestic issues it produces garbage like this.

So, let me check if I’ve got this right: you use legal chicanery to weasel out of your obligations to a service provider, and so they stop providing you with that service. It’s a mystery alright. Apparently, in the Mail’s preferred system of government, the state not only sets the price, but also dictates who businesses can sell their services too. This is right-wing how exactly ?

20 mg of Humbugex STAT!

Get this: the government has introduced new rules whereby immigrants will only be considered for jobs if there’re no suitable local candidates.

Don’t worry, there’s no need to retune your sense of reality, the rules only apply to doctors. Can you imagine a better proof of the toxic mix of elitism and cynicism that drives British Liberalism? Liberals will prattle on endlessly about the benefits of mass immigration, but when it’s their ox being gored, suddenly we get this:

The changes were prompted by the massive rise in numbers at medical school threatening a glut of doctors.
But…but…but I thought that was the point! Wasn’t mass immigration a good thing because it kept down inflationary wage pressures ? So run this by me again, o egalitarian ones: downward pressure on the wages of bar maids and janitors is a good, downward pressure on medical wages is a bad. Ah yes.

The joke used to be what do you call the guy who graduated bottom of the class at medical school ? Doctor. Now, the jokes on us with even the dimmest GPs scoring six figures. How does this supply and demand thing work again ? Meanwhile, we have a medical profession chock full of the type of people who defend the poverty caused by mass immigration by explaining that the people who lose out are all chav scum anyway. I say it’s well past time for some sauce for this goose.

Let’s just consider the wider issues though: Liberals defend an open door policy towards jihadis, pushers and perverts by claiming that it’s culturally enriching to have a former Somalian milita leader living at the bottom of the road. Well, here’s a whole bunch of people who are, doubtless, plenty vibrant, but also intelligent and hardworking, and suddenly the Left has decided that border controls are the way of the future. If only these medics had stopped prescribing drugs and started selling them, Liberals would be all over them, but in the bizzarro world of Liberal immigration policy, the skills Britain really needs are welfare scrounging, blowing stuff up and dressing like a circus clown.

Meanwhile, in order to prop up one of Britain's most highly paid professions, the Left is forcing out huge numbers of highly-trained, hard working professionals providing valuable services. I'm guessing they're jut afraid that if the don't doctors will finally admit the truth, and classify Liberalism as a form of mental illness.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Profiling Latest

In Manchester, your opinions on immigration are admissable evidence in court. Down south, they're a little more relaxed about such things.

Hey, I think we need a scorecard here. Can we have some kind of definitive ruling ? Opposed to mass immigration = evidence of homicidal intent, terrorist chic = access all areas pass. I'm guessing it's down to all those terrorists attacks the BNP have committed versus the Religion of Peace.

What Are The Odds, Hey ?

Who'd have thunk that the guy responsible for this would be called 'Mohammed' ?

Who'd Have Thunk It ?

Down below, I mentioned the Great Charles getting soem flak from the MSM for suggesting that there was an Islamic angle to the Salt Lake City killings. Well, you'll never guess but....

Taking The War Seriously

19 months after terrorists killed 52 people, and this counts as a controversial new move ? And are we allowed to ask why mad bombers never turn out to be hiding in Sikh temples ?

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Don't Mention The War

The great Charles Johnson sums it up perfectly:

The fact that Islamists launch mass murder attacks around the world nearly every single day is immaterial; the vital job of journalists is to make sure there is no “backlash,” and they’ll withhold information to prevent it.
RTWT (and especially the third from last paragraph).

We’re Doomed

What could make the prospect of a giant asteroid hitting the Earth even worse ? Why, this, of course.

They really are in a fantasy world. Try this:

The UN draft treaty would establish who should be in charge in the event of an asteroid heading towards Earth, who would pay for relief efforts and the policies that should be adopted.

In addition, it would set out possible plans to deflect the object.
God forbid we attempt to deflect an asteroid without the input of Hugo Chavez. The giveaway is that the only agency mentioned that’s actually doing anything about asteroids is NASA. Quelle surprise!

I’m guessing the treaty will define the areas of responsibility like this: the US will concentrate on detecting and diverting incoming asteroids, while the UN will concentrate on whining, complaining and child prostitution. That way, everyone plays to their strengths.

Your Call Is Very Important To Us, Please Hold While We Arrange For A Sleazy Moron To Defame You

Liberals have long had the ‘ladder of victimhood’ to help them remember who to support when, say, Islamofascists announce that if Allah meant women to be taken seriously, he’d have given them brains, or when rap artists produce jovial ditties about murdering gays. Equally, important, but less well known, is the Liberal enemies list, used to ensure that the baddie in any given situation is always the one Liberals hate most.

This is why British soldiers are a murderous gang of savages, sort of like the SS but without the discipline and the spiffy uniforms, except when they get killed by the USAF, in which case they’re Anne Frank.

Or take a recent example from the BBC. Normally, the mere mention of big financial institutions has Liberals channelling Linda Blair in The Exorcist. Ditto, outsourcing. Factor in that Libs also think that Big Business provides lousy service just because they can and what do you have ? The BBC allowing an insurance company to claim, without evidence or additional commentary, that all those complaints about its lousy service are the result of a racist conspiracy. Ah yes.

But is there something a bit more unsavoury playing a part in customer dissatisfaction?

"Some people definitely had a certain mindset and decided the call was going to be bad before they'd even dialled the number," says Adrian Web from Esure...

"When we listened back to calls people had complained about often they were fine. Some people wanted the member of staff to fail because they were in India."...

People's complaints might have initially been fuelled by a bit of xenophobia, but it is now about the service they are receiving, says Ms Hathway.
That's balance at the BBC. One guy calling the Great British Public racists, one lass saying that they're racist but there also have other motivations. Call it a wild guess, but I’m thinking if some guy claimed it was all down to the fact them darkies can’t work a phone, the BBC might have managed a follow-up question or two. On the plus side, we now know one company to avoid when it’s renewal time.
Just to clairfy, I think the whiner from esure might be right about some customers, it's just that the BBC has spent years covering how eviiil Big Business exploits defenceless consumers, so it's hard to see this sudden outbreak of sympathy for our poor, abused financial services industry as anything other than Class IV humbuggery.

Manufacturing Massacres

Don’t be shocked, but a high profile war crimes case against a British soldier has just collapsed. Again. You know, I’m starting to suspect that some of these guys aren’t even trying to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians every day. Mind you, Liberals are still pushing the boat out to try and find some – any – evidence of massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan. I keep pointing out that everyone knows there are mass graves across both countries, but they say those massacres didn’t count.

For that matter, what’s with the obsession with tracking down British atrocities? People blowing up large groups of civilians? Yep, we’ve got ‘em, but not only do the Libs give them a pass, they bend over backwards to hobble the folks trying to stop them. To add insult to injury, we have an Army desperately short of almost everything, but money’s no object when it comes to trying to cobble together a Frankenstein’s case against our troops.

Fortunately, as Ross points out, we have Liberalism’s own Mr Tourettes to explain what really motivates these people. There it is, in black and white, by his own account Hari supports conscription because it will hinder military efficiency. Yowser! We always knew that all that Liberal garbage about opposing use of depleted uranium on health grounds and the like was garbage, but still, their desire to destroy the utility of the forces is rarely stated so clearly.

Ditto, Hari’s claim that a conscript army would make it harder to go to war gives us a revealing insight into the Liberal view of politics. It appears inconceivable to Hari that every now and then it might not be the West that goes to war. Are people parading in the streets with banners claiming Christianity will rule in Mecca? Nope. But in Liberal land, it’s always the West that’s wrong.

Hatred of the West and the desire to hobble the Army are what really drives this insane search for a British Oradour. If Libs really cared about civilian deaths, they’d stop referring to foreign jihadis who blow up marketplaces as ‘insurgents’ and the like, but they won’t. Even when faced with head-chopping lunatics, they'll bend over backwards to try and smear Britian.

Can we call them traitors yet ?

Friday, February 16, 2007

No, Iain, That’s Not A Rocket Launcher, He’s Just Pleased To See You

Laban has some great background – and a great headline – on the Greatest Crime Never. Executive summary: folk in Lancashire do not, in fact, go to sleep tucked up next to anti-tank weapons, while the use of the word ‘chemicals’ was predictably slippery.

Not that I’ll mock the police’s confusion of crossbows and RPG-7s, it’s an easy mistake to make – that’s partly why I left the Archery Club under such a cloud. On the other hand, not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, but the Islamopaths probably want to have a think about whether they really want storing large quantities of rice and sugar to be taken as evidence of terrorism.

Still, all of the above does cast a different light on the Tories efforts to cast this as the BNP’s own July 7 (and, remember, this effort comes from the very top). Consider that the ‘suspect’ was a Conservative Party member for 30 years, compared to only a few months in the BNP. Not only does this raise the question of why he’s a ‘BNP bomber’ and not a ‘Tory terrorist’ , it also raises a rather more serious point. Are we meant to believe that after thirty years there was no one in the local party who knew both the suspect and the informant well enough to say ‘hang on a mo’- you know these folks are mentally ill, right ?’ That makes RPG-7s under the sink sound plausible.

There’s plenty to object to in Nick Griffin’s ideology, but at least the BNP has never resorted to exploiting the mentally ill for political advantage. The folks who poked the inmates with sticks at Bedlam at least had the excuse of ignorance and superstition, what excuse do Call Me Dave’s carin’ sharin’ Tory Boys have ?

Super-Important Tip D'Jour

If you're a government trying to reassure people that you can be trusted with a surveillance system that will constantly moniter the movements of everyone in the UK, it's not very reassuring to find that you're harassing public servants who've come out against that policy.

(Thanks to ATW)

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Tories Promise New Help For Disadvantaged Stories

Iain Dale wants to treat the BNP like Islamofascists. Hey, crimes bad enough without having to check with Nasty Nick Griffin before busting any white trash. Ditto, about the only thing that could make British education worse is setting up ‘BNP schools’ where the kids are taught about the dangers of inferior races contaminating our essence (but don’t worry it’s only a metaphor!).

But, wait … it turns out he means the media should stop soft-pedalling the case of a single, former BNP member arrested on terrorism charges. ID claims to be mystified why this case hasn’t received the same publicity as Islamopathic terror plots. Yes, it’s an enigma alright. Here we have a guy who’s been reported to own a rocket launcher (which no one has actually seen), be stockpiling ‘chemicals’ (and also packets of Smash) , who supposedly mentioned that he wanted to kill Tony Blair (who doesn’t ?) and who came to the police’s attention when he was turned in by a wife worried he was going off the deep end. That’s it, that’s the proof of this particular Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Ideally, shouldn’t an indictment be more specific than the average horoscope ?

In contrast, things seem a little more solid where Islamic mayhem is concerned. Never mind the thousands of incidents of actual violence happening post-Sep 11 alone, I think most people can tell the difference between a group of members in good standing of the Ummah, with known connections to terrorism, and illegal items in their possession caught discussing attacks on specific targets, and some nutball stocking up on the mash potatoes, waiting for the day when the New World Order will strike.

But let’s be fair to Iain Dale – it’s an easy mistake to make. On second thoughts, let’s not – the whole point is absurd, as two words will demonstrate: Simone Clarke. Last month the MSM went to Defcon One, terrified by the prospect of far-right extremists controlling the nation’s ballet resources. Any journalist with actual proof of BNP involvement in terrorism would make his reputation for life, yet all we’ve got is an ex-member, stockpiling 'stuff'. I don't think Ewan McGregor will be getting that script anytime soon.

There’s only two types of people who claim an equivalence between the BNP and Al-Quiada: Islamofascists apologists and Brit-hating Lefties. Well, now we can add the Tories to the list. The Worthless One’s idea of taking a firm line on terrorism is to claim the tangos are as bad as the BNP. Hey, maybe you wouldn’t want to live next door to a BNPer, but at least Nasty Nick can point to a proud record of no trains destroyed.

If the Tories can’t even bring themselves to denounce folks who to blow up the 9:23 without wrapping it up in absurd moral equivalence, just how can we trust them to take actual action against terrorists ? For that matter, what of their rhetoric about reaching out to the ‘vast majority of peaceful Muslims’ when they endorse one of the Islamofascists main talking points, namely the secret army of Infidels ready to fall upon innocent Muslims ? Indeed, why even talk about ‘terrorism’ in the first place ? In so far as the Tory position claims equivalence between those who use extreme rhetoric (the BNP) and those who use extreme rhetoric, plus violence (the Islamofasicts), doesn’t that implicitly accept terrorism as just another tactic ?

Still, if Dale wants an example of a desperately under-covered story in the North-West, here’s one served up on a plate. Perhaps he'd like to speculate as to why this one hasn't been covered by the MSM ?

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Well, It Could Have Been Worse

So, that was the first two episodes of ‘Life on Mars’ season two. As I suggested earlier today, I was half expecting a bait and switch deal this time round, with the accent switching to PC nannying and ‘weren’t our ancestors horrible’ sermonising. Fortunately, the BS is still fairly subtle by BBC standards, but it’s definitely cranking up. First episode we had woman bravely battling against sexism, then second time up we had black dude bravely battling against racism, followed by next week’s episode, which looks like it’ll be loveable Oirish folk bravely battling against the bigots opposed to their jovial homicidal ways, to be sure. We may as well start taking bets now for which episode will take us to a gay club.

That’s all alongside the previous offences. Amazingly enough, it turns out that case number one was helped along by using Sam’s 21st Century techniques for processing a crime scene. Again. Ditto, the Morgan Freemanesque barman – not insignificantly called ‘Nelson’ - was present and correct. Still, at least the show has an actual plot and good dialogue, which beats out the rest of the dreary Lefty drivel the BBC pumps out.

Actually, just as with the first season of the new ‘Battlestar Galatica’, there’s at least the saving grace that while the Liberal subtext is there for all to see, they acknowledge that there are actual counter-arguments from the Right. Take the first episode of the new run, where Sam’s clashing with a man he knows will become a murderous gangster by 2006. Suddenly, it Sam who’s bending the rules and DCI Hunt who’s playing it by the book. Of course, this sort of inversion is SOP in these shows, but it’s nice to have some acknowledgement that there’s a downside to the ever-expanding range of ‘uman rights. It’s great that there’s at least one BBC show that can consider a Conservative viewpoint, but it’s just a pity that it has to be sneaked in hidden in the boot of a Ford Cortina.

If Only The Past Was Another Country

Ranting Stan sums exactly what hacks me off about 'Life on Mars'. Actually, the first series surprised me by not being a PC fest. We'll see what it's like this time round. Still, the sneering at the past grates a bit, the more so when you realise that it's coming from the 'who are we to judge ?' demographic. Apparently, we can't say whether or not female circumcision is a 'good' or a 'bad', but pre-1997 Britain was a savage hell hole.

We need more multichronal sensitivity.

Monday, February 12, 2007

I, Victim

Monday morning though it may be, I’m feeling pretty happy at the moment. As a white male, I’m responsible for everything that’s ever gone wrong ever, including the rise of Hitler, the sinking of Atlantis, Nelson Mandela being jailed, and Bin Laden being free. So imagine my relief when I found that I too qualified for the Left’s Special Victimhood Program – and I didn’t even need to get up off the couch to do it. Actually, getting off the couch would probably be a bad move all round, now I’m a certified victim of fattism.

That piece of research really is just the perfect example of modern academia. Physical Education teachers have a downer on fat kids ? Really ? You know, it’s really lucky we’ve got these grant-gobbling nogoodniks around to tell us these things, otherwise they’d be no way to tell that the knuckle-dragging mesomorphs did not approve of bloaters – other than subtle hints, such as listening to what they say.

Still, even this insight into the blindingly obvious isn’t the best of it. Here’s what the researchers have to say about their conclusions:

We need to educate PE students and teachers about the physical limitations of some of the people they work with.

Physical limitation ? Having no legs is a physical limitation, being fat is mostly a lack of limits. In so far as the fat would generally prefer to indulge rather than perform repetitive motions at the behest of a semi-literate Neanderthal, it’s a matter of choice rather than the cruel hand of fate stuffing cheeseburgers down anyone’s throat.

See, this is what’s wrong with the victimhood industry. Liberals profess to be terrified by the supposed epidemic of obesity sweeping the land, but then they turn round and claim actual fat people are hopeless and hapless victims. So, on the one hand we need fat permits for business (and this from a supposed Conservative) while on the other we’re not allowed to suggest that folks such as myself may indeed be less active than, say, Olympic sprinters. Or, to put it another way, yet again the Left wants to replace social pressures (‘don’t be such a slob’) with Big Government. Hey, it worked so well with the family, right ?

(Cross-Posted At TWA)


English is hard!

Personally, I Thought It Was Inbreeding

Hey, I actually find Cameron’s admission of drug use quite reassuring. At least there’s some kind of logical explanation for why he’s so firmly ensconced in the Hotel Insania.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Moore From The Tories

Further proof of the Tories sloughing off extremists and attracting a younger, hipper, just plain nicer crowd: top choice on ‘Webcameron’ is another contribution from the Truthers. Meanwhile, Iain Dale – a Tory A-Lister remember - continues his flirtation with Trutherism.

Let’s leave aside Dale’s absurd point that only some of the 84 BBC interviews were softball city – other than to ask if can we have some kind of hint in future if it’s going to an interview or a meeting of Sob Sisters Anonymous ? Ditto, let’s state that, yes, for the sake of argument, the suspect is totally innocent of these specific charges. Well, call me old-fashioned, but refraining from sawing off heads should not – in and off itself - qualify someone for a soft-focus interview with the BBC. To put it another way, I wonder what Dale’s reaction would be if the BBC offered this kind of kid gloves questioning to a guy ranting about gays. Of course, Abu Bakr probably doesn’t go a whole bundle on hanging out with all the boys, but that’s kind of the point: we aren’t actually told anything about him. The nuance fanatics at Al Beeb are running the story with nary a hint of context or background.

I believe the phrase that pays is ‘hoist by your own petard’. The BBC has been pushing the line that the vast majority of peaceful Muslims are terrified by the thought that they could be arrested at the drop of a hat by racist police picking names out of the phone book. Whatever could have given them that idea ? Well, how about a broadcaster which allows a suspect in a terrorism case to rant and rave without any kind of context whatsoever ?

Instinct tells me that Abu Bakr has left quite a paper trail. No, that alone isn’t grounds for arrest, but neither does that mean the Left is justified in presenting him as some kind of everyman martyr to the Nu Gestapo.

But what really sticks in the throat is Dale’s characterisation of the debate as between ‘civil libertarians and authoritarians’. Really ? Personally, I’m thinking the authoritarians might be the ones lining up with Marxists and Islamofascists. On the other hand, the anti-dhimmi camp stretches from Nick Cohen to the hard Right (also known as ‘real Conservatives’). If we’re seeking to impose some kind of sinister hidden agenda, it must be a doozy to get all these folks on board. Well, you know, either that or we just want to win the war.

That’s irony number one right there. The ‘authoritarians’ turn out not to want to impose any particular agenda after all. Meanwhile, the ‘civil liberties’ crowd worships at the altar of unelected and unaccountable power, insisting that each and every effusion from the moonbat-infested fever swamps of the courts be treated as the new Magna Carta, even in the teeth of overwhelming public opposition.

Are there real ‘authoritarians’ seeking to use the war to chip away at important liberties ? Probably, but here’s irony number two: in insisting on a Stalingrad strategy whereby even the most obnoxious examples of judicial overreach are defended to the last man and the last round, these ‘civil libertarians’ make it easier for real authoritarians to argue for throwing out any number of babies with the junk jurisprudence bathwater.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Socialism, Liberalism And The Descent Of The Left Into Madness

Fame at last! A link from Samizdata. Only trouble is with it being slightly critical, that’s going to make the post I was planning later today look like payback.

Anyway, to business: Brian Micklethwaite questions my use of the word ‘Liberal’ for the people who make up the bulk of the modern Left. It’s quite deliberate. I try to use ‘Liberal’ in place of ‘Leftist’ quite simply out of respect for the Left.

No, really.

Take Frank Field: while much of what he believes is just plain wrong, you can’t doubt his sincere commitment to social justice. OK, so passionate stupidity doesn’t help anyone, but Frank Field really does have brilliant insights into where Britain’s gone wrong and how to fix it. Equally admirable is the fact that he’s prepared to follow his insights to their logical conclusion even if it brings him into conflict with the kool aid posse – who’d have thunk that it’d be a Labour MP who’d be the most high-profile supporter of private pension provision ?

What Frank exemplifies is that there are – or can be – good arguments for Leftism. If I’d been born a hundred years ago, I’d probably have been a socialist. That’s not to say Leftists can take all the credit for progress since then - I’m sure plenty of folks at Samizdata would claim the Left actually hindered progress – but back then the Left was grappling with serious issues. Not just politically either – there was a whole flotilla of Leftist organisations providing things like educational services and the like (really providing them, not just outsourcing for the government). Again, they may have been wrong on the specifics, but the principles they endorsed, things like self-reliance, education and a sense of community, were good ones. It seems unfair to bracket these people with Cherie Blair.

This isn’t just a matter of morals, in the sense that Frank Field has them, and Cherie doesn’t. Nope, it’s much bigger than that. Consider education – there are plenty of ways to organise an education system, but the central problem is this kind of thing. From educating the masses to eulogising stupidity, things sure have changed in Leftland.

It’s hard to pin down exactly what Liberals believe, not only because of their natural slipperiness, but also because it doesn’t make sense anyway. It’s a mistake to spend too long analysing the ideological underpinnings of folks who’ve embraced both the Gay Rights pests and Islamofasicts. Nevertheless, there is a definable spine of ideological thought which can be summed up as Liberal, as distinct from traditional Leftism. Maybe Liberal doesn’t quite catch the sense of where they’re at, but that’s better than letting trade on the legacy of honest Leftism even while sticking two fingers up the principles that animated their forefathers.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Alf Garnett Takes To The Air

Not the least ludicrous thing about the Left’s response to the death of L/CoH Hall is their breathless reporting of coroner Andrew Walker’s unhinged attack on America as though it was some kind of shock. Hey, maybe we’d have let them call it a shock when Walker first used an inquest to denounce America, but this time round it just looks like a one-hit wonder trying to relive the glory days (a deranged moonbat being appointed to two Liberal cause celebres – what are the odds hey ?).

Anyway, what’s with this idea that denouncing America is somehow a courageous stand in the British legal system ? Denouncing Israel at the Hamas annual convention takes more courage. All he needs to do is work in something about Kyoto and he’d be on the High Court by next Tuesday.

The real mystery is what happened to the chickenhawk meme. About ten minutes ago, this was the Left’s favourite argument: unless you had personally bayoneted sixteen Argies at Goose Green, you lacked ‘the experience, judgement, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.’ But suddenly everyone – grandstanding politicians, know-nothing journalists and media whore coroners especially – knows how to manage air assets in a mobile battle. True, they never actually get round to explaining how they’d do things differently – written requests ? – but they’re really, really sure that the Yanks are STOOPID.

That’s another rich source of humbuggery right there. Tuesday’s Jeremy Whine show was just the worst of a whole bunch of shows full to the brim with slack-jawed idiots phoning in stories about how their granddad always told them that those Yanks couldn’t be trusted with bombs. It’s just a pity we never got to hear grandad’s views on blacks or gays. For that matter, can we check the rules here ? Call it a hunch, but I’m betting more people in Britain have suffered death by Islamopath than have been killed by the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so how come no one’s talking about the vast majority of peaceful A-10 pilots ?

If nothing else, with officers of the court sounding like writers for 'comment is free' and MSM deadheads pretending to be Montgomery while airing the views of semi-literates claiming that Yanks are stupid, immature thugs and personally they send ‘em all back home, can the Left just stop pretending they’re baffled that the Yanks won’t hand over their personnel for trial in Britain.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Journalist Barbie

The Rotty Pup bags the BBC for using one of the most absurd ecoloon talking points. As the Rottmeister points out, just where do Libs think the business community live, if not in the world ? Do they commute in from Mars ?

But let’s just consider the humbuggery here. The BBC doesn’t agree with the plainly observable fact that, yes, if the Earth falls into the Sun, even the rich people will die. I think the term goes something like ‘motes and beams’. For years Beeboids have been eulogising the whole Liberal litany, including ‘progressive education’, multiculturalism and the rights of sex offenders, all while themselves living as far as possible from Ground Zero. Folks who really have seen how, say, the curriculum has had the liver of Prometheus torn out it have been dismissed as out of touch reactionaries, even while Beeboids have been careful to put their larvae down for faith schools. How about a Beeboid visiting the indigenous people’s of Bradford ?

Still, even that isn’t the most depressing part of it all. Consider the slack-jawed logic on display here:
Call me cynical if you will, but my first thought was, so you mean, what, corporations like Enron? Or Arthur Andersen? Or WorldCom? And I was not alone. Mr Bodman had momentarily silenced an entire press corps.
Like, totally. Is this really a BBC reporter or did he get his 14 year old daughter to write it ?
Call me cynical if you will, but I'm like yeah, riiiiight! And I was not alone, everyone was, like, totally ‘I can’t believe you said that’, and it was like, dead funny cause Rachel at CNN, who’s really kewl, even though her boyfriend's kind of weird, is like ‘you are such a geek!’ and we’re all laughing and then…

Best Story Ever

This made me laugh like a hyena on NO2. I had to track down a page of Ben Elton gags just to stop laughing.

Actually, I’m kind of charmed by the idea of a place where people can just be themselves. Liberals have their 750 page definitions of human rights, but when it comes to that most central of rights – the right to do your own thing, they want nothing to do with it.

The humbuggery is thick in the air here. What of all those folks, including some on the Right, who gave pious speeches about the importance of standing up for gays ? Here’s a whole bunch of homos getting nailed by these regs, so where are they now ? Ah yes, it turns out that the whole ‘gay rights’ thing doesn’t extend to actual, y’know, rights for gays. Well, either that or they just don’t get excited when there’s no chance to flick a v at the Church.

On the other hand, what’s with Matthew Parris and pals ? These folks were taking out onions not two weeks ago just because there were tiny corners of the Septic Isle where rampant butt 5ex was not regarded as art. Thousands of noble arboreal citizens of the Earth where sacrificed to carry heart-rending – or possibly stomach-churning – pieces about how they felt as though their very souls had been torn out of them and ripped into a million pieces by the jackboots of the Theocons and their outdated insistence that there be no playing the pink oboe during Sunday Mass. Yet, now we’ve found some more cases of people being discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, there’s no sign of unsanctioned soul removal. Seems like Parris and pals have packed their crosses away. Apparently, you can go too far with this whole ‘tolerance’ thing.

So, anyway, the Pink Wedge are principle-free hacks, and The Dawk’s Brights are a bunch of creepy fascists. Same ol’, same ol’, but at least some gays might have joined the long list of people who finally realise you can go to bed with Liberals, but don’t expect them to respect you in the morning.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

The Reassuring Pursuit Of Filthy Lucre

Continuing on today's theme of the depraved nature of modern Liberalism, consider this latest story passed on by Ranting Stan. Let’s leave aside the attempts at creative writing here, and just consider the charges on their own merits. But wait! They don’t have any. As Stan rightly points out, half are completely unsupported and the other half don’t even make sense.

This case would be disturbing enough, even without the question of motivation – or lack thereof. Why exactly did this family become the target of a Liberal Jihad ? The Mail speculates that it was to allow the council to hit government targets for adoption. That sounds bizarre, yet what other reason could there be ? Well, for one, I’d suggest the fact that – contra to the Liberal argument that the police must reflect the communities they serve – social services departments are dominated by folks who are hostile to the conventional family. If you genuinely believe the traditional family is exactly like a gulag, then that makes it a lot easier to destroy one. Either way, it is disturbing to note that the full machinery of government can be unleashed on such puny grounds.

The key point is that, whatever the motivation of these people, there was no one around to say ‘this is insane’ and nothing in the system to stop them. Liberals are obsessed with the idea that everyone in jail has been framed by bent coppers. Well, here’s a case of bent social workers trying to destroy an entire family, but the Left isn’t taking calls. Is seizing someone’s children worse than planting a wrap of H on them ? Why yes, I believe it is.

Consider what it says about the modern Left that this sort of thing raises no eyebrows. This is what I mean about the nihilism of the modern Left. No matter how degraded your moral sense, the idea of children being seized by the state on absurd grounds should appal you, but even this does not raise the Left’s hackles. After all, social workers are firmly in the Left’s camp – you just know the bar’s set far lower for groups identified as traditionally Conservative.

Except that’s the thing. Liberal’s talk darkly about ‘putting profits before people’. If only. The pursuit of profit means that you have to at least try and produce something somebody wants. Government’s don’t have to bother, which is one reason why real evil needs state backing. After all, Holocaust II would be hard to raise funding for. Equally, as in this case, it would be kind of hard to get people to pay for a bunch of lesbian headbangers to destroy families for trivial reasons.

The Right Kind Of Genocide

Further proof of the moral degeneracy of Liberals. Not only pushing even more legislation restricting free speech, but loading it down with caveats to protect people whitewashing their favourite murderers.

The New Age Of Nothing

As I said before, it might just be that Liberals have managed to contrive the only ideal in the world today that’s less inspiring than the concept of humans as playthings of the moon god. The Left’s determination to cleanse the public square of Christianity is a big - perhaps the biggest – part of that, but there’s more to it that that. It’s often said that the fall of the Berlin Wall meant the Left had nothing left to fight for. The trouble is that that’s pretty much what the Left is fighting for: nothingness.

It’s not that the Left ducks the big issues of today; it’s that it doesn’t agree there are any big issues. In the age of irony, the Left’s main contribution is to affect a smug, eye-rolling air of being above it all. Sawing people’s heads off, not sawing people’s heads off, who’s to say which is better ? A country is whoever happens to be passing through at the time; a family is any random group of people who share a postcode.

All this wouldn’t be so bad, if the Left was merely cynical, but this very nihilism has become an ideology all on its own. Not only does the Left not believe anything, but it hates with a passion anyone who does have beliefs. Everyone who’s not ready to splash round in the Left’s moral equivalence cess pit is either a dupe or a fascist, depending on how well they argue against the Left. Ditto, all cultures are equal, except Western culture, which is the evilest there could ever be.

Not to say that even some Leftists don’t feel the strain of cognitive dissonance every now and again. Hence the descent into junk science and trutherism, as Liberals struggle to explain why sadistic muggers are the real victims and noble savages nobly fly jets in buildings (they’re traumatised by their childhood, and the Jews did it, respectively).

Back in the day, the Left had some insane ideas, but at least they (most of them) really wanted to make the world a better place. Now, the Left’s sole impulse is a destructive one. They hate the West, and they’ll turn any number of ideological somersaults to advance that hatred. Take the Pink Wedge: Liberals claim to be obsessed with gay rights, when it allows them to wage war on the family, but when the major threat to the West internationally is a group of people who string gays up, well, hangings are just fabulous!

That’s what’s wrong with modern Liberalism. Look behind the hatred and the bile and there’s….well, nothing really. That’s their achievement, that’s where we came in. That's how they contrived the only ideology in the world less appealing than Murderin’ Mo’s death cult.