The Essence of Cameronism

Shut it, Mark!

Don't you know the Dear Leader himself has pronounced on this matter ? Yep, it's all our fault the State employs obnoxious semi-Neanderthal jobsworths:

The decline in civility is not confined to a few unruly families and neighbourhoods. It is all around us - on buses and trains, in shops and on the street. The abusiveness of many young people and the indignity suffered by the elderly; the lack of respect for authority and the consequent lack of courtesy from authority - all this is increasingly part of the normal daily experience of living.

It's Like Christmas In December

Well, I have to say that I'm shocked to find out that group of grievance mining racial arsonists might be involved in something underhand. Note too that despite not having managed to submit any actual accounts for four years, their grant has still gone up 400%. See, it's exactly like slavery!

Yes, It's True: The Sequels Do Get Worse

Conservatism is a pathway to many abilities, some considered to be unnatural. Consider the fact that merely seeing the headline "Coroner attacks 'inexcusable' US", I was able to guess just who it was.

I'm not sure where the line is between 'disinterested seeker after truth' and 'media whore' but, once you been back to the well for the third time, you're no longer 'crusading', you're 'branding'.

Lest it be argued that Andy Pander is just doing his job, let's just check up on what even dyed-in-the-wool Leftists admit is the role of an inquest:

Proceedings at an inquest are inquisitorial, rather than adversarial. This means that there are no opposing parties setting out to prove a particular version of events. This reflects the fact that the inquest is a fact-finding exercise and not a means of apportioning blame for the death, or trawling for book deals

Actually, I added that last bit myself. Still, it's at least as valid as any of the Sun Tzu of Oxfordshire's contributions to military strategy. Indeed, the defining feature of Walker's output - apart from girly hysteria - is the lack of any real insight. Consider Walker's comments on the death of Sgt Roberts. There were no Americans around at the time, so Walker had to content himself with piously complaining about 'unforgivable and inexcusable' delays in providing body armour to the troops. Now, read what Mr FM had to say about the same case. So which one is the blogger and which the officer of the court ?

Of course, some will point out that Mr FM is ex-Army, while Mr Walker is a current Liberal no-nothing. Well, yeah, that would be the point. Seriously, we need someone to draw up the rules here. On the one hand, we can't mock Mr Bean, Jabbah Turney and the rest of the 'frightened 15' because we don't know what they went through, but operating a military aircraft under wartime condition, over water and at night ? Jus' common sense, init ?

But even on the legal system's own terms, Andrew Walker doesn't make the cut. Liberals wax lyrical about the importance of judicial independence, but here we have a guy whose whole reputation is built upon issuing soundbites slamming the troops. Take this latest case: it's 'inexcusable' that those damn Yankees won't release evidence to Squeally Andy. Hey, Andy, would that be evidence much like the cockpit videos they released last time, the ones that were leaked approximately 3.5 seconds after they were handed over ? So it looks like the US can either hand over classified material, and see it published by the MSM the day after, or it can keep hold of the evidence, and be criticised for being reluctant to see military data splashed all over the front page. It's great politics, but this kind of stupid GOTCHA! does tend to rule you out of the 'impartial finder of facts' stakes.

Back to the death of Sgt Roberts: Mr FM's description gives us a real insight into the compromises and judgement calls involved in deploying an Army, while Walker's output can be summed up as a squealing, foot stamping cry of 'Not Fair!'. So Walker's achieved his ambition after all: he is a Liberal icon. Can you think of a better pin-up for the Liberal approach to life ?

Honest Enablers Of Predation

Expanding on a comment I made over here, Liberals love to charge Conservatives with hypocrisy as, Liberalism being an ideology which discrads all forms of traditional morality, it's the one thing they can never be charged with. Bottom line: Liberals are amoral scumbags, but we're supposed to respect their honesty.

Hence, why we have bizarre situations like the one Laban points out. Libs flay the churches for protecting perverts, even while maintaining an winking, ask-no-questions-be-told-no-lies relationship with the perversion itself. When exactly was the last time Liberals pushed legislation designed to hit these monsters ? Here's an experiment: next time you're trapped in a gathering with Liberals, mention how you think perverts should be named and shamed, then see how long it takes a Liberal to mention the paediatrician who was burned out of their home by a rampaging mob. I'm guessing under 3 seconds - only one problem: even the Libs' own Church admits it never happened.

So let's check the scorecard here: the people warning of the danger from a group with a proven ability to kill and kill again are the hysterical mob, while the people citing bogus atrocity stories are the sane ones ? Ah yes.

Naturally, you may be shocked - shocked! -to find Liberals lying in defence of evil, but that's not even it. Look who they're defending. Look who they've always been defending. It's the social workers joke taken to the limit, with Liberals stumbling over the body of a dead child and saying 'gosh, I hope nothing bad happens to the guy who did this'. True, Liberals keep claiming that by blocking legislation targeting predators, they're actually making it harder for perverts, but that's not hypocrisy! because no sane person could ever believe that anyway.

We're supposed to hate the Church because it protects degenerates within its ranks. Fine, now how about Leftists who protect degenerates by blocking new laws, and even refuse to implement the laws as they currently apply ? No, that's all right: they're Liberals, we always knew they were amoral scum anyway.

Hollywood East

Yep, actors are the same the world over.

UPDATE:

Too good to check ? In the comments, 'riddler' points out this.

I'm Not A Blogger, I'm A Blog-Engineer

Further evidence for my theory that the more absurdly overblown the title, the less likely it is that the holder actually performs the function concerned: excusing the Anglican Church's coddling of predators was the Rev. Pearl Luxham, the Church's National Safeguarding Advisor. Ah yes.

Vibrant!

The Château Generals of WWI make good hate figures, but plenty of young aristocrats died leading platoons and companies. Things are a little different nowadays. Would you believe it, most the folks yammering about the joys of multiculturalism just never get the chance to partake of the benefits themselves ? Fortunately, Stan is the Man with a Plan to let our elite get the full benefits of their labours.

One Man's Pirate Is Another Man's Sailing Enthusiast

Of course, for this to be a true analogy, you'd have to end with the Captain demanding the setting up of an enquiry to determine what the First Mate knew, and when he knew it.

Call Me Dave And His Purple Sword

Couple of interesting posts by the Great Steyn, here and here. He's writing about the culture of passivity and the corollary, the belief that Big Government can fix all our problems, without so much as requiring us to even think about unpleasant facts. Ironically enough, there was an excellent example of that thesis in the beyond-parody reaction to the first article, with Leftists charging Steyn with 'insensitivity'.

This all feeds into what I was on about in that last post. Whatever feints Call Me Dave makes in the direction of encouraging personal responsibility, his instincts are still firmly rooted at the 'purple swords only on stage' end of the spectrum, which is why he always falls back on the language of the greetings card industry.

It's the Hallmark of Good Policy

Call Me Dave has unveiled his new policy: people should be nicer to each other. Take that opponents of niceness! Hard to believe there was a time when Tories modelled themselves on Churchill, not Muriel Kleen.

While we wait for a definitive statement of the Tories position on cute puppies and long walks at sunset, let's try and refine what exactly the Dyson of La Paz is actually saying here. Is it 'nice' to call people 'fruitcakes, loons and closet racists' or 'maniacs', compare them to Nazis or claim they're responsible for deaths from AIDS ? Those first two were Call Me Dave on UKIP and Peter Hitchens respectively, while Tory leader in the London Assembly Brian Coleman compared people flying the Cross of St George during the 2006 World Cup to Nazis and Francis Maude claimed Lady Thatcher was partially responsible for his brother's death from AIDS.

The deeper point Camerong is trying to make is not completely stupid. He wants more non-governmental involvement in curing social problems. That could work actually. Consider how much the Catholic Church already does in the area of adoption, for example.

What ?

Oh right! See, that's the problem right there, that's what's so infuriating about Cameroonacy, the endless amounts of cake had and eaten. For all that Cameron talks about passing more responsibility onto people, he still wants to keep in place Nu Lab's elephantine state, together with Frankensteinesque social engineering, absurd PC, and the taxes required to support it all. So you still won't be able to get an appointment with your GP, but it'll be your own fault for not being pro-active enough.

Religion

The always NSFW TDL on intelligent design (bad arguments for).

It's Different For Libs (Part 1521)

The BBC is just disgusted that anyone can pay tribute to the Nazi sense of showmanship. Well, except them, obviously. That's a whole different thing.

I'll Take All You Jew-Lovers, Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere.... Except Here & Now, Obviously

Blogosphere was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me

Alan Hart: he really is the gift that keeps on giving, isn't he ?. You may recall that his cunning plan to stop people talking about the what he said was to threaten to sue everyone on the planet (and that's not to let off those little green scumbags either!). Well, now it turns out DSD took him up on his challenge, at which point Al suddenly decided that when he said he'd sue anyone, that wasn't exactly what he meant. Apparently, DSD has to give him copies of seven forms of ID, a blood sample, teeth impression and, by the way, could he find a good solicitor for Al, too ?

Hey, who'd have thunk it ? A Lib running away from a fight. It's like a double hat-tip to Python, channeling Sir Robin and the Black Knight both at once. And besides, DSD is STOOPID!!!!! Furthermore, we understand Alan is considering the possibility of escalating to calling DSD a poo poo head.

You've got to admire the excuse though. Al's worried that his solicitor could be targeted by an 'organised barrage of hate mail'. Wow! That's even worse than a disorganised one, where all the stuff just flops through the letterbox, any old how. If only they knew someone who could arrange a restraining order!

Still, it looks like Jenny Tonge was right! This is how firmly International Jewry has its talons around the neck of the working man: they even control the Royal Mail. Yes, it's true: The Jew is using the Post Office as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless.

I'm telling you though, these are sad, sad times for the Zionist World Government. From the glory days of murdering God and starting all the wars in history, to signing solicitors up for junk mail. Where did it all go wrong ? I mean, it has to be said that Al's mates favour a more direct approach. On the other hand though, they haven't yet escalated to the 'mocking references on the internet' stage, so I guess Al's right: the real enemy is the Jews Zionists, after all.

Dale Vs Dale

I told you he kept asking for it. Iain Dale has just sniped at ATW after they noted his Cameroonacy. No, says Iain, he's a wild blog tiger on the road to Mad City, so don't diss his 'tude, dawg!

Speaking personally, I'm thinking the fact he feels the need to remind people how independently independent he is at least once a week kind of speaks for itself. But let's consider the evidence. Let's look at what Dale wrote about the Tories insane plan to cut a deal with the Lib Dems and put up Greg Dyke as their joint candidate for London Mayor.

Back in the far off days of Wednesday April 18th, Dale considered the plan 'bizarre' and claimed that he'd have to 'swallow very hard indeed to lift a finger to campaign for a candidate like Greg Dyke, who doesn't have a Conservative bone in his body'. Not only that, but in post titled 'Fallout From the London Nightmayor', he called the plan a 'a fraud on the electorate'.

Apparently, the delivery boy must have stopped by with the latest batch of kool aid this weekend. Suddenly it turns out that 'a fraud on the electorate' is actually proof positive 'that David Cameron is able to think the unthinkable and to delve into political areas no one would expect him to'. Apparently, proposing a 'bizarre' plan proves that Cameron is a 'risk taker', unlike cowardy custard Ming Campbell, who's so gutless he actually thinks candidates should actually support the party they're standing for.

Hey, here's a free clue: if your plan is too squalid even for the Lib Dems, that means it's really low. But this is where Cameron is taking the Tories, with Iain Dale following him around, explaining that 'fraud' actually means 'thinking the unthinkable'. I guessing he applies the same standards of accuracy when he describes himself as independent.

No Comment

Mark from Blognor Regis points out more Wikipedia fun.

UPDATE:

All good things come to an end, but fortunately Mark has a screen grab.

Moonlighting

Over at TWA, I've written some more on this.

Enormously Huge Scandal

In so far as merely being mentioned on the BNP's website is now to be taken as evidence of being linked with them, I guess we're justified in pointing out that Nick Griffin has even actively campaigned for the Tories. Have they no shame ?

Two From Oz

Tim Blair points out some of the contradicitons of the Left, while Pommygrante proposes some new laws of politics.

Dead Lebanese Guy Oppressed By Britain

Interesting coincidence of stories over at ATW. First, there's the news that the race hustlers want to rebrand St George. Yep, out goes the unilateral aggression against members of the reptile community (a key demographic for Libs), in comes St George as representative of Britain's oppressed ethnic minorities', and St George's Day as a 'day of dissent', celebrating Britain's tradition of 'rebellion against the abuse of power.

Are these guys being paid by the cliché or what ?

As it happens, we do have a noble group of dissenters fighting the abuse of power right now. Yep, The Man wants to use The Power to twist the minds of The Kids, so they'll buy into The System. Call it a hunch, but I'm not thinking the BBC will be producing any drama-documentaries about these guys speaking 'truth to power' anytime soon.

Lamest Smear Ever

I've said before that I don't want to turn this into IainDaleSux.Com, but he doesn't half ask for it. Take his latest revelation.

'Weak' is not the word. But let's just think about what the Tories are saying though. Here we have UKIP, a party that believes in maintaining British sovereignty, small government and law and order, and the Tories are busily claiming that makes UKIP indistinguishable from the folks worrying about the purity of their Aryan essence ?

That's a common enough argument amongst the loony left, but it's a new development for soi dissant Conservatives to use this line of argument. After all, isn't that all stuff the Tories claim they support as well ? So which is it ? Are the Tories lying when they claim to embrace these ideas, or when they claim UKIP are extremists for believing the self-same things ? Or - and this is the one I'd go for - are they a bunch of opportunists lacking any real ideological ballast whatsoever ?

Where Are Our Nuts ?

Ex-Beeboid Alan Hart explains who's really behind the (possible) murder of BBC correspondant Alan Johnson. Don't be shocked, but it turns out to be the Jews what done it. Maybe he could help O J find the 'real killers' ?

That's the thing, not just the proportion of BBC staff who retire then come out of the closet as lunatics, but that it's always the same type of lunacy. If the BBC is truly unbiased, shouldn't there be an equal number of staff who believe that, say, the Left murdered Robin Cook after they found out he was actually working with MI-5 in an attempt to expose their secret alliance with Al-Quiada ?

Bottom line: if the BBC must recruit nuts, at least let's have an equal representation of nuts.

MSM Backtracks On Need For On-Line Civility

Leftists and the MSM - no wait, that's a redundancy - have been busy recently burning up innocent electrons in the name of calling for bloggers to stop being so Conservative nasty. So let's see how our betters deal with a genuinely sensitive topic. Here's the Guardian's Comment Is Free on the Virginia massacre:

I think American gun laws should be loosened so that drunk people and 4 year olds are no longer discriminated against.

The crazy mo' fo's put their right to bear arms above their right to get a broken bone mended for free and then want sympathy when one of the 300 million halfwits works out which end the 'death' comes out of.

Not from me buster..

That's from a creature calling himself Mexicola. As one of the first comments, it's been up all day, without any of the 'mods' seeming to have any problem with it. But maybe he's just one of that tiny minority of extremists, right ?

Next up, there's 'freepoland' - whose name incidentally provides further evidence that Lefties are always ready to take up a cause, so long as events have rendered it moot - proving once again that multicultralists believe all cultures are equal, except western ones:

The right to 'bear arms' always sounded like a piece of mediaeval pageantry. And it results in mediaeval barbarity when kids don't understand that life and guns don't mix.

Yep, those mediaeval barons were notorious for encouraging the serfs to be well-armed and self-reliant. But anyway: 'Kids' ? Liberals want five years olds to be taught about oral sex, but a 23 year old is a child ? Hey, who'd have thunk it ? A Lib trying to shift the blame from an evil degenerate onto them GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNS!

At least 'Lennorthfield' cuts out proxies, like the Right to Bear Arms. No, the real enemy is freedom itself.

The cult of the individual is the source of this horror. The US and the UK and slowly creeping into continental Europs. Self centredness, lack of respect for others and an unswerving belief in one's right to do whatever the hell one wants, regardless of consequence, is to blame. And we have taken to this paradigm like ducks take to water.

The answer? I dunno, maybe teaching people that its how much you do for the people that's important not how much you ger from them?

Yep, the killer was a product of the crazed individualism of Asian culture. At least there are still some parts of Korea free of the cancer of individual rights!

But that's a side-issue, the real question is this: what are the odds that the stuff he's 'done for people' happened to involve the happy by-product of a fat public sector wage packet and generous pension at about 38. I say 2-1 on.

From 'definitivecynic' comes this insight into the Liberal mindset:

What absolutely amazes me is the lengths the gun lobby will go to in order to find a place within the debate that lets them defend their hobby/fetish/constitutional sacred right to bear arms/whatever while still looking as if they care about young people not being blown to pieces with guns.

A guy from the Virgnina Defense Coalition (or some such tossy nonsense) was on Newsnight last night suggesting that if students were allowed to carry guns then they could defend themselves against this sort of thing, presumably by waging a full gun war on any intruder and hoping to win by sheer force of numbers.

That must be some ammo if it can blow people to pieces. But since when has utter lack of knowledge stopped Liberals talking about anything ?

Nope, the real pearler is the talk of a 'full gun war' (huh ?). Yep, maniacs wandering round shooting people ? That's bad, but people defending themselves ? Liberals have never heard anything so terrifying. Hey, someone could get hurt.

Next, there's a contribution from the winner of 'most unconvincing screen name', 2007. Yep it's 'ExArmy', proving once again that if you were talking about crop rotation in Chile, Liberals would still find a way to inject their love for surrender into the debate:

If I lived in America I would carry, hell America is a gung ho society shoot before you talk as the Iraq operation proved. As they would like to do in Iran if Iraq had and as Waco and Ruby ridge proves. No wonder Americans on both the left and right are scared of the American government.

But... but... wasn't St Bill in the Oval Orifice Office when Ruby Ridge and Waco happened ? I guess, for the purposes of attacking America, even Slick Willy gets thrown overboard.

Meanwhile, if you do think your government regularly sends out death squads to kill innocent citizens, would you really want to have to rely on agents of the state for your personal protection ?

But no, Liberals see no conflict in claiming that the US government is a fascist dicatorship, and demanding that the only people allowed to carry arms should be agents of that state. Here's 'southoftheborder':

there's no way that effective gun control can come into to force in america with the powerful dynasties running the country still in power. there's too much money and influence involved.
a sad result of this saddest of events will probably be more guns sold and more profits for the 'masters of war'. just so some 'patriotic' vigilante feels they can be a hero next time.

Yep, curse those deviants who might fire back at a crazed gunman. Don't they know homicidal maniacs have rights too ?

Then there's this comment from 'DisUall'

Look on the bright side - much better for Americans to stay at home killing each other than roaming the world slaughtering innocent men, women and children wherever and whenever they take the fancy.
Let's hope this aspect of the violence-obsessed US culture thrives.

Seeing as how one demographic is represented more than any other in these statistics, I'm wondering about the likely response of the Guardian mods to anyone reposting this with all the references to Yanks replaced by references to you know who.

Ditto, with this comment from 'questionnaire'

Of course guns are a problem. But Canada, Switzerland and Northern Italy have higher per capita gun-ownership rates.
It has happened elsewhere. But it is happening in the USA with alarming frequency, so explanations based solely upon individual pathology hold no water.
If one views this in the broader perspective of very high murder and imprisonment rates, mass media productions obsessed with death and violence and an aggressive foreign policy, it becomes obvious that there is something fundamentally wrong with mainstream American culture. It is beginning to look like an experiment gone wrong.
Whatever it is, Britain is beginning to show signs of it too.

Except it is overwhemingly not 'mainstream America' that suffers from these crimes. As in the UK, the violence is concentrated in certain demographics. Funnily enough, it's the Left doesn't want us to ask what's wrong with those cultures though.

The difference between the USA and Europe is that the Americans are much more religious. The combination of religion and weaponry is very dangerous, they value life much less than the more secular Europeans.
Also the religious-mindset is too fatalistic to bother with fixing the problem. They blame 'God' or 'Devil' and abrogate their responsibility rather than face reality.
There is no point asking Americans why they don't restrict gun ownership every time dozens of youngsters are massacred. Even if this happened every week it wouldn't occur to most Americans that there was anything they could or indeed should do about it. They'd just go to Church and pray.
Its a crying shame as its a lovely country and the people are incredibly friendly and hospitable but they've got a bad case of religion and it has a price that is paid in blood.

Yep, Americans are violent - even when they're actually Korean - because of Jesus. Isn't that just like a Guardian reader ? A Korean guy goes nuts in Virgina, but he still finds a way to blame it on a Jew.

HuffPo Published This ?

OK, three times and it's a trend: have a look at this one. Looks like my theory was right, after all.

MSM Death Groupies

I'm guessing there weren't many bloggers around when the nation lost Sir Frederick Mercury, but I like to think Social Conservatives would have had enough class not to spend the day after claiming the loss of a music legend shows what's wrong with the gay lifestyle.

For all the supposed nastiness of the Right, it's hard to imagine anything equivalent to today's frenzy of US hating. The bodies have barely started cooling in Virginia, but already the MSM is busy explaining why they always knew you couldn't thrust them damn yankees. Apparently, there's no vast majority of peace-loving Americans. Ditto, with swords, oak leaves and gold cluster, for the hopolophobia. Apparently, a lone criminal slaughtering huge numbers of law-abiding citizens means we have to crack down on law-abiding citizens. Plus, if Reynard breaks into the hen house, the farmer should really do something about the chickens. Laban takes this idiocy head on.

Not The 300

Wow! It was bad enough when the Left was coddling Islamofascists, but now it looks like even an outbreak of killer zombies can't distract them from the real threat. The Right's often accused of being prejudiced, but I think I can speak for most Conservatives when I say that even the French are better than a horde of flesh-eating undead.

Not much better,obviously, but measurably so.

The thing is, not only are there already approximately 8 billion movies using a variety of moronic metaphors to indict Conservatives, it's not even a new development for the zombie genre.

At this point, all I can do is quote this again:

After forty years of liberal rule in Hollywood it is nihilism that’s old-fashioned. It is moral relativism that is tired. It is political correctness, the always-noble people of color, the always-evil white guy, and the metrosexual that is cliched. A film with a clear divide between good and evil is something new. A film that celebrates patriotism, heroism, sacrifice, freedom, and honor is something revolutionary. In 1955 300 would be old-fashioned. In 2007 it makes a counter-culture statement as strong as Easy Rider in its day.

Dept of the Obvious

Again I say you could run a whole blog just reporting cases of Libs breathlessly reporting stuff anyone with half a brain could have told them. Here’s today’s entry.

Who’d have thunk it ? Paying everyone the same irrespective of how hard or well they work results in people who don’t do much of either. It’s almost as if incentives matter. Meanwhile, we’re left wondering what it is about Liberals that makes them so obsessed with pushing a policy which favours the lazy and stupid ?

How Not To Defend Abortion Rights

Completely deranged article pointed to by the folks over at ATW. Abortion as jus’ good mothering ? There’s taking a new angle on the subject, and there’s completely unhinged – this is in group two.

On the plus side though, you have to respect her candour. Pro-abortion campaigners often claim to have come to their position only after years of agonising, but now here’s one telling the truth - she supports abortion because she thinks its a good thing. Hell, exaggeration for comic effect is pretty much half this blog, but even I couldn’t come up with line about the kitchen worktops (seriously, if you haven’t clicked through to the Times, it’s worth it just for that).

No matter where you stand on abortion, something surely gets killed. It’s just a matter of whether it’s an actual human being, or just some kind of mindless, soulless living cadaver, sort of like a lawyer. And that’s all without taking into account the dangers to the mother, both general to any type of surgery, and the specific risks of this procedure in terms of increased risk of cancer, infertility and the like. Executive summary: the whole abortion-as-female-empowerment ideal is moronic.

Then there’s the extra-yukky factor, the weird subtext behind it all, best summed up in the line about a ‘child that, through no fault of it’s own, would be the destructor of a marriage, a family, a parent.’ Yowser! No issues there then.

It’s that thing again: moral seriousness, or lack thereof. Never mind the specifics of abortion, there’s the wider issue of what this sort of thing says about our culture ? Where a woman is writing about the empowering effect of killing her foetus, or the horrific effects of children on family life, that raises questions like whether or not the cult of abortion – based as it is on death, or at least, the prevention of life – has a coarsening effect on society ? Bottom line: surely I’m not the only one whose sympathies are naturally with the pro-killing side of the debate, but feels my stomach turn over a little when I see rhetoric like this from abortion defenders.

No Violence Here!

Have Liberals traded in cocaine for sodium penthol ? In the self-same week we’ve had Princess Tony caught in public admitting that there’s an overlap between the demographic that’s most likely to be involved in gang violence and the target market for Kop Killa Kollective’s new ditty ‘Da Ho Had It Komin’, the Observer reported this.

Hey, it is the Observer, so naturally the Dept of Absurd Rationalisations has been hard at work but – as commonly happens – the effect is the opposite to the one intended, emphasising just how indefensible this all is. The winner of ‘Best in Show’ is undoubtedly the claim that the murder was partially down to the failure to fund racially-exclusive leisure facilities. Can you imagine, in the wildest extremes of possibility, the Observer ever justifying tacit support for racially-motivated homicide amongst native Britons by citing the shortage of ‘whites-only’ swimming pools ? Call it a wild-shot in the dark, but I’m thinking folks who demand apartheid down the leisure centre are already pretty far down the road to justifying racial murder.

See, that’s the thing. There’s no need for talk of ‘institutional racism’ here. Here it is front and centre. A racially-motivated homicide occurs in front of a bus load of witnesses, who promptly shrug and go do whatever scumbags do all day. If the players had been the other way round, the BBC would already have sixteen programs on the go.

UPDATE:

Thinking about it further, you have to admire how the Observer's story manages to include a full load of rationalisations for racial violence, without ever spelling out that it was a racist murder. Well played, Sir!

Meanwhile, I'm left wondering if there is a deeply Conservative point under all this. Steve wondered whether the black communities acceptance of (support for ?) mob violence in the 1980s created the conditions for today's crime wave. Me, I'm thinking it proves the absurdity of 'hate crimes' laws. Conservatives argue against hate crimes laws because they suggest some murders are to be taken more seriously than others. But maybe that's cuts the other way too. Maybe there's a connection between the violence and anarchy in the black community and a culture where murdering whites is no big thing ? Maybe murder is murder after all ?

Something A Little Lighter

Now, this is funny.

Violence ? These Guys ?

As I understand it, we're now allowed to mention the mayhem in the black community, but only if we agree that it's all the fault of whites. I guess the race hustlers might have a point, after all, who could imagine guys like this being involved in anything disreputable ?

Liberal Slapfight

Red on reds are always fun, but I have to admit to admiring Blair's courage in actually pointing out that 'Britain' doesn't have a problem with knife violence. Rural villages, Golders Green and Chinatown all remain mostly free of gang warfare. Pointing out that gang violence is centred on certain demographics seems to be the modern equivalent of saying 'Jehovah'. Still, Blair being Blair, he effortlessly manages to steer the truck into a ditch.

It needed to be addressed by a tailored counter-attack in the same way as football hooliganism was reined in by producing measures aimed at the specific problem, rather than general lawlessness.

Well, yesssssss! In the technical sense of the word, soccer hooliganism has been mostly beaten, but take a walk round the average city centre on a Friday night. The mayhem still happens, it's just more dispersed. Footy hooliganism is a textbook case of the Liberal tendency for treating the symptoms not the cause. The analogies are there, but I'm guessing they're not the ones Blair wants you to draw.

On the other hand, at least Blair makes a kind of sense. What of the ten mile long queue of black activists, who've been filling up the airwaves all day claiming that the black community is already facing up to its problems and, besides, its all down to poverty... deprivation... alienation... racism... the vast right wing conspiracy... Jews... global warming ?

Yep, they're addressing their problems.... by blaming whitey. OK, homies, I'll buy that, but it has to be both ways. If black guys killing other black guys is the natives fault, then every time a black kid gets his stethoscope, that's our achievement, right ?

Oops. Guess not.

The readiness of supposed 'community leaders' to fall back on victimhood and flirt with racial paranoia raises the question of why exactly they're considered part of the solution rather than part of the problem. But what about Blair ? Just how much cheese does it take for Blair to come out with this:

I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.

Gosh, someone should have said something! Wait...the Right has been saying exactly that for years. Meanwhile, the Left has been waging a jihad on the very concept of boundaries. If Blair was really worried about kids being deprived of rules, he probably shouldn't have presided over the castration of the school discipline system.

Ditto, who was it who set up the MacPherson Show Trial ? The central lunacy of MacPherson was that the witch hunters started from a premise that the police were so obviously racist, they didn't need to actually provide any, y'know, evidence. All of which means we have ended up with all manner of perverse outcomes like this one:

It might seem strange that an investigation into the stabbing of a teenager would lead any sensible person to conclude that we should restrict the power of the police to search young people for things like knives

Blair's shamelessness have been one of his few consistent features over the years, but if chutzpah was dynamite, he'd be on the Moon right about now.

Indeed, it's a sign of just how much damage the Left has done to political discourse in this country that merely pointing out an undeniable fact - that the violence is concentrated in black areas - is treated as controversial in the first place.

Even More Supporting-of-the-Troops

Thinking about that last post, it occurs to me that the Navy still isn’t the most obvious example of a British institution throwing in the towel. Just what can we expect them to do in a culture where even soi dissant Conservatives have taken against the military ?

Look at Iain Dale for a perfect exemplar of how the Tory Party supports the troops. He writes a twittering puff piece about loveable Jack-The-Lad Piers Morgan. Hello ?

For the record, Morgan was not fired because he squabbled with his proprietor, he got caught bonking his secretary or he dropped LSD in the punch bowl at the Christmas Party. Morgan was fired because one day in 2004, he sat at his editor’s desk and thought ‘You know what we really need more of ? Bogus war crimes story based on faked pictures’!

No doubt some over-enthusiastic controversialists would admire Morgan’s wacky jape. Ditto, many of the L3 scum would buy into Morgan’s absurd defence that an editor could hardly be expected to check a story and besides, while the story was completely bogus, it reflected something that could have happened somewhere in Iraq. But what’s with an endorsement from the internet face of Call-Me-Dave’s prissy princesses of PC posturing ?

Hey, if you’re going to support the Tories PC purging, you’d think you could spare some outrage for a guy who takes part in a hoax designed to defame the Army during time of war. The Left keeps claiming that almost any action Britain takes will provoke terrorism. Well, OK, Libs, here’s a guy producing genuinely provocative material out of whole cloth - shouldn’t he be held accountable for that ? Even if, like me, you’ve noticed that it’s easier to note the things that don’t provoke the RoP to violence, we’ve still got a guy who’s attempted to defame his nation’s forces – and still maintains the ‘truthiness’ of his charges. Even if you’re a moral nihilist, this should suggest a certain something about his likely credibility.

Bottom line: the only thing Morgan should be writing is a prison diary, but no, in the Nu Tories even producing libellous rubbish about people serving their country in a war zone is no big thing. With that kind of 'moral leadership' on display, it’s hard to blame chav scum for lacking moral conviction.

Screw-Ups Yes, Heroes No

The saga of the Iranian hostages having easily made the transition from potential tragedy to certain farce, I have a confession to make: in some respects it’s a weight off my mind. See, I’ve run into a few Naval folks, and 90% of the time I think ‘what a tosser!’, closely followed by a vague guilt about thinking badly about one of the people defending my right to call them tossers. So, naturally it’s a relief to find that they are tossers after all.

Well, yeah, you can’t say how you’d handle a situation like that until it happens, but just how much worse could it have been handled ? Seriously, just what exactly did these professional warriors do that couldn’t have been done by Joe Public ? But let’s not lump all the blame on the Navy. The Romans knew that an Army reflects the society from whence it came. Need I say more ?

For proof of the real pathology affecting the Forces, consider that while the MSM was offering huge deals to the Navy’s answer to Jade Goody, the BBC was busy spiking a drama about VC winner Johnson Beharry as ‘too positive’. What more can you say ? Well, other than ‘against the war but for the troops’ must mean something different in Liberalland.

Then there’s the many specific policy decisions that have damaged efficiency. Take the PC recruitment policies that lead to people like Jabbah Turney being on an (alleged) warship in the first place. In fact, it goes further than that. The innuendo-proof RAF sent a team to a Manchester gay pride festival, complete with a mock up of the front end of a Eurofighter, so gays could climb into their cockpit, grab the joystick and fantasise about thrusting upwards. What could possibly go wrong ?

But that’s not the worst of it. Aside from the specific idiocies, there’s the logic that underlies it all, the belief all this talk of the ‘art of war’ and the like is just macho blather designed to prevent members of the headless lesbian community from getting their fair share of the cake. Ditto, the same idea underpins the Left’s determination to subordinate the Forces to the courts, via ‘human rights’ legislation and the like. Once you accept that dogfighting with a Mirage is just another job, sort of like working in a bank, why not have m’learned friends picking over every high-G roll ?

Well, here’s the news: if you remake the Armed Forces as a uniformed branch of the civil service, don’t be surprised when the troops act like the average civil servant.

Part of the impetus for the founding of the welfare state was the Boer War – or more specifically, the lousy physical condition of recruits for that war. Maybe history is repeating itself: could there be a better barometer of just how far our society has fallen than this case ? So don’t be too harsh on the Navy. After all, they’ve done what the Left wanted, look at these obese, whining chav scum and tell me we don’t have a Navy that ‘looks like Britain’.

Liberal Victory

Ross F reports proof positive not only that Liberal's default foreign policy position is surrender, but that they think that's a good thing.

Words Fail Me

For further insight into the Neverland of Cameroonacy, consider this latest proposal.

In a parallel proposal, I understand those found guilty of tax evasion will be given a 'limited' right to keep the money.

What It Did For The NHS, It Can Do For Policing

For those few folks out there still believing that the Cameroonatics are a bunch of geniuses who just play idiots on TV, I’ve got some really bad news.

I mean, really, just look at these proposals. In so far as the Tory plans are distinguishable from those of Nu Lab, it’s because they take already stupid ideas and push them that idiotic bit further.

Take the question of meetings between police and members of the communidee. Where doesn’t that already happen ? Police management love to spend their time on community action forum planning group committees, it’s actual law enforcement they can’t stand. Now, they’ll have a whole new herd of white elephants to spend their time on and for what ? Community involvement sounds like a good idea, but who really wants policing priorities to be decided by the type of people who’d go to these meetings ?

As it happens, we already have a whole infrastructure to provide local accountability – if, indeed, local government can’t control the police properly, then that surely speaks to a more profound failure of government ?

Come to think of it, even the Tories don’t seem to like the idea of local control after all. Hence, this:

It suggests that the 43 police forces in England and Wales must either co-operate more on serious crime or a national serious crime force should be established.

So, more local accountability, but also more centralisation. Cake, have/eat, much ? Ditto, with the idea of a national, super-special, elite, serious crime force, and besides, in which universe exactly are police management reluctant to set up special task forces. Again, special teams they got, it’s the day to day policing they don’t want to do.

They also want stronger local accountability, with directly elected police commissioners to replace police authorities.

Can the Tories finally have stumbled across a sensible policy ?

The elected commissioners would control budgets, target setting and policing plans, while chief constables would be in "operational control" of their force

That would be a 'No' then.

Isn’t that just like a bunch of Oxbridge graduates ? You can almost hear them now, explaining how their ‘policing plan’ was just brilliant but those idiots in blue bungled it. Just what the country needs, another tranche of highly-paid managerial babblers, busily drafting vision statements and nudging the elbows of the folks doing real work.

But think this one over. The Tories idea for bringing more accountability into policing is to parachute in a whole bunch of folks who don’t have any actual responsibility for policing.

No, what it’s all about is what it’s always about with Blu Labour. The Saddam thing.

Tory police reform spokesman Nick Herbert said… increasing the accountability of the police was important, as was the need to "drive up performance" of the police by modernising work practices.

"We need to recognise that policing has changed and society has changed and we need a differently shaped workforce to respond to today's needs."

Change, change, change! Quick everyone, let's re-engineer our core processes for the opportunities of the new century. Or, alternatively, why not stop screwing around and let the police police ?

Yep, things have definitely changed, in the sense of getting much worse. But isn’t that just typical for the Tories. They start yapping about accountability and the like, but it always turns out that the problem is with the worker bees.

So there you have it: the Tory vision for law enforcement. More Potemkin communidee input from the bored, the mad, the political hacks and the single-issue fanatics, plus a whole new class of managerial bloodsuckers, employed to administer regular floggings to the folks who actually do the work. What could go wrong ?

And Another Thing...

Thinking further about yesterday's post, it occurred to me that we really need to check the scorecard here. If I get the Left's position right, it's that '24' is dangerous because it leads people to support torture, but all those programs that present dysfunctional insanity as hip and cool are 'just entertainment'. Right ?

"Ultra-Right-Wing Boneheads"

This is what passes for rational debate at the BBC.

Oh, hang on - I hear a whimpering from the corner. Mr Liberal would like to point out that this post was in the BBC's magazine section, so it should be counted as commentary, rather than news. Well, alright, now lets see the figures on how often Conservative commentators get invited to denounce 'degerenate terrorist enabling Liberal vermin' - I'd start the betting at 'never' and work down from there.

But let's not let the superficial bias blind us to the deeper bias evidenced here. The fat blusterer is ranting about 24. Yep, that 24, but it takes more than climbing into bed with the truthers and swallowing whole the Liberal metacontext to shrive a single suggestion that the Right might have a point.

So think that one over. There's no Liberal bias in the MSM, but when a program gives the merest hint of a Conservative point, it's enough to have Liberals start channelling Linda Blair in The Exorcist. How very balanced!

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Turns out John Jeffries thinks Christianity is kind of rubbish.

Ah no - maybe that's unfair. He just wants to remake it to take out all the nasty stuff, and make it a kinder, gentler touchy-feely bunny rabbit of a philosophy.

Wait - I was right first time.

So who cares anyway ? The moonbats have always hated Christianity. Except it turns out to be that John Jeffries, the bloke who wanted to be the Anglican Church's first gay bishop until those nasty homophobes forced a climbdown.

Who'd have thunk it, eh ?

Looks like those nuts had a point after all. In so far as the crucifixion is kind of important for Christians, John Jeffries views really are incompatible with the religion. Maybe it would be better for the world if there was a faith which emphasised the happy, smiley Jesus, but it wouldn't be Christianity.

As ever, there's a wider issue here. Yet again we have a gay rights activist claiming he 'just wants to be one of the lads', who turns out on closer inspection to have a radical agenda. Equally, whatever your views on the mechanics and morality of putt bunching, nothing speaks for the incompatibility of the wider gay lifestyle with Christianity more than Jeffries attempts to rewrite the Bible.

This the key point. What those pesky 'homophobes' perceived clearly was that Jeffries' support for the status quo was purely a tactical and transitory thing. As with many other institutions, the Church could stick to its traditions, or it could reinvent itself as some kind of touchy-feely big tent, but it surely could not do both.

Red on Red

Ever since the Left somehow managed to bilk people into believing the Nazis were right-wing, they've been pushing the line that indexing tax thresholds or school vouchers inevitably leads to Auschwitz. Hence their desire to remake the history curriculum as Nazism 101, complete with painfully contrived analogies to Conservatism. The only problem is that it's all gone horribly wrong for them.

Isn't that just like Liberals ? They've spent years pushing the 'Conservatives as Nazis' meme, but when they meet some folks who really do share common ground with the Nazis, they roll over. To return to a common theme, this is how essentially amoral Liberalism is. They've spent years claiming to be terrified that British Conservatives could create the Fourth Reich, but now it turns out Nazism is no big thing after all.

So much too for all the Liberal posturing about 'challenging racism'. If the Adolf Hitler Fan Club don't count as racists, who does ? Ditto, if someone's offended by people criticising Hitler, I don't think we can really call him a moderate.

This is Liberals telling us who they are. This it it: Liberalism in action. Even Hitler doesn't motivate them, not if it means they'd be on the same side as Western Civilisation. Here's the nihilistic train wreck of Liberalism in all its glory.

All of which raises a question: just what are they going to do with all their 'Bush=Hitler' signs ?

Really Offensive

Hey, does anyone know if the Iranians have forced any of the hostages to make videos ? Wait, I've just checked the BBC, where they've apparently got them on continuous 5 minute rotation.

Yep, the folks who refused to broadcast the Motoons have no problem airing kidnappers' home movies. I dunno, is it just me who finds our state broadcaster headlining every show with the site of British citizens being ritually humiliated also kind of offensive ?

More to the point, I'm guessing the Iranians haven't managed to persuade their captives to take part in these little productions purely by the force of reason. Nope, they almost certainly been threatened, and probably tortured as well. The Iranians are doing this to produce propaaganda they hope the MSM will pick up and disseminate.

All of which is by way of saying that the BBC is tacitly encouraging the torture of British citizens. We have no problem with seeing that those who pay for child pr)n are as guilty as those who produce it, so surely the same standard should apply to those who disseminate material produced by torture and coercion ?

Oh sure, a boycott by the BBC - or even the whole of the British MSM - alone might not stop these videos being made, but then again, there are plenty of nonces out there, but that doesn't mean we should force people to pay for their perversions.

Nothing

Who says the government can't get people freed ? The BBC has been pushing this story all day and always next to reports from Iran. I guess they're trying to suggest an equivalence between this scumbag and the Iran hostages.

A lot of folks would call this moral equivalence. I wouldn't, I'd call it moral nihilism. If you can't see the difference between professional soldiers and a guy who thinks blowing up the No 27 is a fine way to make his point, then your moral compass is terminally twisted. If nothing else, can these people stop yammering about 'atrocities' ? If setting off a bomb on a crowded train is no big, then sure as hell nothing the British Army has done in Iraq rises to the level of evil.

But, of course, it's all tactical. If nothing else, the Iran hostage crisis has proven just how bogus all that Liberal moralising really is. The Red Cross, Amnesty International and all the rest of the caravan of fools have suddenly been struck dumb. Liberal morality turns out to mean whatever they claim it means. We always knew the Left was full of it, and now they've been exposed.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....

As a bare minimum, I'm thinking that 'shocking' and 'provocative' artwork shouldn't just be another variation on something that's been done approximately 800 000 times before. Ditto, shouldn't a verdict of 'courageous' actually require facing some risk ?

Hey, if anyone's boldly sticking two fingers up to the zeitgeist, it's the protesters. How come we never see glowing tributes to their courage ? Surely their work counts as 'thought provoking', even if the thought it provokes goes something along the lines of
'giving house room to people who want to insult your customer's deeply-held beliefs probably isn't such a good idea'.

Bottom line: same ol', same ol'. Liberals claim the right to insult and abuse the Right, then when the return fire comes in, they try and cast themselves as, well, Jesus on the Cross.