Tories Have Actual Good Idea

The figures are in, and it looks like the Nu Tory quest to sacrifice all their principles in exchange for muh electability appears to have been only partially successful - specifically they've managed to disown everything they once believed in but with pretty much the opposite effect to the one predicted by the Smartest People In The Room. 

Admittedly, the SNP are the only people in Britain who appear to hate the Union Flag more than the Nu Tories, but they're not an obvious example of the electorally damaging effects of patriotism. 

Still, if there's one thing Respectable Conservatives know how to do, it's doubling down on failure. They know what the real problem is: too many patriots in the party:

Ms Soubry  said: 'We are on a membership drive at the same time as the likes of Banks are urging members of Ukip and other hard Brexiteers to join our party to topple the leader and destroy government policy.

'I've called on the party chairman to end the membership drive until we can be confident we are not being infiltrated by people who are not Conservatives.' 

Yes, indeed:  they want to screen incomers to make sure they will make a positive contribution instead of causing trouble.

Sounds intriguing, huh?

Say, I wonder if we could apply this principle to any other areas of public life?

For those of you keeping score at home, the current Nu Tory position is this: strict screening for people who want to join the Tory Party, but not for the guy coming through Heathrow with a stripey vest and a large bag labelled 'Swag'.

At this point, who can deny that the Tory Party is anything other than an employment service for Metropolitan snoots?

Govt Minister Tests Positive For Banned Substance

Namely, testosterone.

Needless to say, the Usual Suspects have taken it calmly and rationally: 

But his comments have sparked a row after the former director of public prosecutions Lord MacDonald branded the remarks 'juvenile'.

Uh oh...I understand that if Gavin Williams doesn't withdraw his comments, His Lordship might escalate to calling him 'dreadfully suburban' or 'frightfully common'.

But it's not just lords calling out this guy. Nope, there's also a ladyship too. That's what counts as egalitarian in the modern Labour Party: nobles of both sexes (I guess we'll have to wait to hear from the other 72 genders).

Apparently, these comments are outrageously outrageous but the only people the MSM can find to denounce them have never been elected dog catcher. Meanwhile, people with the need for actual votes are strangely unavailable for comment.

That's why this is important. Obviously, a policy of killing the fox before it gets in the hen house is the right thing to do, and also a certain vote winner, but it also exposes the central myth of cuckservatism. We're told that professional conservatives have to pander to freaks like Shameless Shami for the sake of electability but when a conservative finally tells these people to shove it, Labour MPs suddenly remember they've left the gas on at home. The extreme position turns out to be the one that no one who wants to be elected will argue against.

'Troll' Means Nothing

At this point, surely everyone on the right now knows that a troll is just someone winning an argument with a liberal. This is why when the MSM reports a trolling atrocity story they never quite get round to covering what it is today's baby seal said to draw fire in the first place.

Consider this latest example. Nope, she wasn't 'asserting the ethnic diversity of Roman Britain', she was supporting the open borders obsessed BBC's ludicrous attempts to rewrite history by claiming that the father of a 'typical family' in Roman Britain would be black (as summerised in this YouTube video).

Now you see what the MSM is so reluctant to tell what she actually said! It doesn't get any better on closer inspection. Her evidence for Roman Britain looking like Brixton was that there was a Roman Governor who was born in Algeria. That's her 'typical family' - the Emperor's representative in Britain. That's like claiming the Pope is a typical Catholic priest, and never mind that Algerians aren't now, and certainly weren't then, black, or that, by the same reasoning, Cliff Richard, Rudyard Kipling, Joanne Lumley and thousands of other children of the Raj would be 'typical Indians'.

And then there's the point Nassim Nicholas Taleb made. As befits a genuine genius (rather than a phoney-baloney beneficiary of the left's Witless Protection Program), he asked the key question: if Roman Britons really did look like the cast of Zulu, what happened to the descendants of all these people? No matter what happened in the intervening period, there should be some trace of their DNA in Britain, and there just isn't.

This isn't a matter for debate. With the state of modern DNA science, you may as well claim that fossils are just random rock formations, but the same liberals who sneer at creationists, will seriously claim that mass mutation has somehow robbed millions of Britons of their ancestral DNA (and, what's more, somehow substituted it with that of other ethnic groups).

If anyone is a troll, it would be the fraudy-pants wacademic unleashing a mob of liberal lackwits on anyone who questions her junk history... especially when even the BBC has started to back away from its ludicrous claims. 

God Save The Queen's Head

Yep, it's a tricky dilemma all right. Speaking as a real conservative, and therefore someone who even in his resting state generates as much patriotism as 1.6 million David Camerons, I was tempted to watch the Royal Wedding, but then I remembered I'm not gay.

Besides, it has the same flaw as every other wedding: no matter how much you slice and dice it, you're still seeing a man descend into the bowels of Hell itself.

On the other hand, not watching sounds republican, which is a form of liberalism, and therefore may lead to being the kind of snivelling little weenie who's spent the last two weeks telling all and sundry how you're totally not going to watch the wedding, 'cause that's the kind of rebel tiger you are.

Yes, indeed: they're prepared to risk being seized by the Royalty Squad and arrested under the Compulsory Watching Act of 2011.

Spare us. Recent events have confirmed it is - literally - braver to sing karaoke than be a republican right now.

So what to do? There's only one answer find a place where it's on but there's no need to actually watch it. And on a sunny public holiday too. It's tough, but on the other hand if I drink Bombardier, I reckon I can get up to 2.6 million Camerons.

This Is Being A Poodle

Like I keep saying, The Dave will always find new ways to nauseate.

At least when the usual suspects accused Tony Blair of being a poodle, it was over actual policy. Blair, like Bush, believed there was no possibility of long-term security as long as the Middle East was allowed to remain a cesspit, hence his support for invading Iraq.

Meanwhile, a car load of Senators demand the Head of Her Majesty's Government presents himself like a schoolboy going to the headmaster's office and he folds like a row of tents. Odds of M. Sarkozy or Frau Merkel turning up for a meeting with the MPs for Cornwall? More or less than the chances of the whole county breaking off Devon and drifting to Spain?

That's what hacks me off so much about this guy. It's not just that individual policies are insane, it's that his whole worldview is a train wreck. What does it say about him that he can't see something fundamentally wrong with the idea of a British PM submitting to an inquisition by hack politicians from a foreign land?

Honest Liberal Detected

There's a film coming out celebrating a Christian extremist who waged war against a democratic government in the hope of imposing a dictatorship which would cleanse the country of immigrants.

Why, yes, it is set in Ulster. How'd you guess?

The humbug is so rancid that even a Guardian staffer can't take it any more.

Funnily enough, the response from the libtards in the comments seems to be lacking their famous nuance. As far as I make out, their two main lines of counter-argument are that the Daily Mail is bad, and David Cox is writing from a British perspective. All of which throws into sharp relief the state of the British left.

For a start, is there anything more 'Daily Mail' than whining about the Daily Mail? Seriously, they whine about it Every. Single. Time.

Then there's the whole thing about their constant whining every time someone calls them unpatriotic. Yes, I think if you go weak at the knees for a film based on every libel your nation's enemies have ever deployed, your patriotism may be kind of suspect.

On the other hand, at least this movie proves that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't as universal as you might think. Consider that leftists are enraged by any allegation of mistreatment of self-confessed terrorists - no matter how dubious these allegations might be - but wanting to ethnically cleanse most of the people out of your country? A noble ambition, sir!

It's a simple fact that in Bobby Sands' Ireland Protestants would be ethnically cleansed, either overtly as in the early days of the Republic, or via the indirect route of oppressive Jim Crow laws. Until then, he and his pals were perfectly happy to kill them one at a time.

Then there's the Root of All Evil Mother Church. Leftists have spent years disparaging the Catholic Church for.... well, everything really, but now we have a case where Catholic priests really did help murder people for having the wrong religion and we have what must be the first sympathetic portrayal of a priest for years.

So much for principled atheism. It turns out that liberals are totally down with the church, just as long as it'll keep on with the good stuff, like helping terrorists, and ditch the extreme stuff, like opposing gay marriage.

But the final point is this: as Ross points out this piece of deranged racist lunacy is actually being funded by the UK. There's only two things that need be said about that. One is this: in so far as we're funding movies depicting fascist sociopaths as heroes, I'm not necessarily convinced that tax cuts will have to be at the expense of 'ospitalsanschools. Point two: in so far as this film is a hibernofascist pr0no - as evidenced by the Guardian comments thread - funded entirely by the very people whose murder it glamorises, what have eighty years of religious fundamentalism and racism done to the rancid republic? How comprehensively wrecked does your culture have to be to end up dependent on foreign imports of racism?

Georgia In Flames, Transnationalism In Ruins

The great thing about calling your blog 'House of Dumb' is that you don't feel under any pressure to feign knowledge. I don't mind being the only blogger in the UK who admits he has no idea what's going on in the former USSR. Either the barbarians are clawing at the door of western civilisation once again, or a great nation has found a leader who puts bonds of blood and honour over the self-serving rationalisations and slippery legalese of the degenerates who make up the world's permanent ruling class.

Whatever this invasion reveals or doesn't reveal about the Motherland, it sure throws new light on modern liberalism. Consider the reaction of the alphabet soup NGO's - as neatly summarised here by PM - apparently, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't as Universal as you'd think. Either that, or condemning anyone outside the Anglosphere or Israel doesn't get the donations rolling in. Not since UNICEF produced an advert supposedly lamenting the suffering of children in war which featured jets raining down death on innocent villagers has the anti-American monomania of these people been so blatant.

Then there's Europe. As the true extent of Russian thuggery sinks in, an outraged continent has risen as one and shouted 'The US should do something!'. Not that the EU is afraid to spend money on big defence projects. After all, they are spending a bundle on the Galileo satellites which will duplicate America's GPS system. So soon you'll be able to drive to Uncle Mike's without being exposed to US mind control transmissions but the whole EU doesn't have a single armoured division to put between the Russian border and Kiev.

In fact, from a study of EU strategy and the order of battle for the European Rapid Reaction Force, Eurocorps und so weiter, it looks like the only scenario in which these forces can and would fight is a Martian invasion of Bruges - and even then the Belgians wouldn't turn up.

Don't be shocked, but it looks like having 'soft power' is the same as being 'differently rich'. But that's not even the half of it. The decayed state of Europe's defences is just a symptom of a more general malaise. After all, why spend money of arms when the will to use them is absent anyway?

The EU is the latter day equivalent of Victorian aristocrats getting together to pass resolutions announcing that only the profits made from land count as proper money. It is denial as foreign policy. Do these people really think being excluded from the group photograph at summits will deter Putin? Or, as the most notorious Georgian of them all would have said, how many divisions does international law have?

Outrage D'Jour: Special Open Borders Uber Alles Edition

The courts have backheeled the rules on bogus marriages. That was depressingly predictable, but the logic on show is a classic of the 'constitution as an ink blot' genre:

Baroness Hale said: "Denying those benefits to a couple whose relationship is genuine is neither a rational nor a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of a firm and fair immigration policy."

Let's ignore the sleazy sleight of hand - the whole point is that these relationships are not genuine - and consider the sheer brass neck of Hale's comments.

Hale is not resolving an ambiguity, filling in a gap in the law or interpreting statute. Her own justification makes it clear that she's not ruling on legal grounds, she's ruling on whether or not she think the existing policy is - to use her own words - proportionate or rational - an overtly political decision. She might have some worthwhile views on this, but there's no reason to privilege her views over any other citizens just because she has a good technical knowledge of the law, rather than, say, aviation, insurance or gas fitting.

To the point: Hale claims her legal status gives her the right to overrule a democratically-elected government, yet the self-same law makes clear that her position is a constitutional abomination.

It gets worse:

She said the right to marry was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Except no one is arguing against the right to marry. It's the right to marry then get an automatic 'access all areas' pass that's the problem.

But here's the real insight into modern liberalism:

"My Lords, this scheme is an arbitrary and unjust interference with the right to marry," she said.

Arbitrary? The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is anything but arbitrary. It's central to the whole point of having a country. You might as well argue for a right to joyride since 'ownership' is such a vague concept.

Forget the specifics of the case: Hale's position is a clear as day endorsement of the whole open borders position. In fact, she's so committed, she's even ditched her trademark femilunacy. Compare her current position...

"Even in these days, when many in British society believe that there is little social difference between marrying and living together, marriage still has deep significance for many people, quite apart from the legal recognition, status, rights and obligations which it brings."

...with her original one:

This is exactly what Dame Brenda was doing when in 1980 she made her now infamous remark about marriage. ‘Family law’, she wrote, ‘ no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage…Logically, we have already reached a point at which…we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.’

All of which exposes the other piece of humbuggery here. Hale and the rest of the open borders advocates argue that the whole 'nationality' is so over, so last year, but what other issue could cause a howling mad femiloon to ditch her principles like a red hot porcupine? The lengths to which the left will go to try and destroy ideals like citizenship and patriotism in and off itself is proof that these concepts still have power and relevance even after forty years of culture war.

Dhimmis D'Jour: Supporting of the Troops Edition

Gosh, who can this mysterious 'minority group' be? I'd take all this whining about Islamophobia more seriously if the vast majoirty of peaceful bombers Muslims didn't react like Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist' every time someone showed support for their fellow countrymen rather than head chopping loons.

Yep, That's The Point

File this under 'Missing The Point': an educrat is complaining that the testing regime in schools is forcing teachers to concentrate on teaching their subjects, instead of educating the kidz about how the Bushchimpler and his corporate masters bombed the Twin Towers so the Jews could invade the Amazon rainforest and steal the oil.

All too true, but it's a feature not a bug. Forget all this talk of 'setting teachers free to teach'. They don't want to teach, they want to indoctrinate, and the moment we take the sword from their throat, photosynthesis will be out the window and 'global literacy' will be in.

Tory Patriotism (And Other Popular Myths)

Another Dr Strangelove ('Gentlemen, Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!') moment in Middle England. No flying England flags in England. Like I keep saying, if the sight of a flag causes you such stress, it might be you with the problem. Ditto, if something similar had happened in 18th Century Scotland, the Scot Nats would still be staging plays about it.

Hmmm... which has more extremist baggage anyway ? Flying an England flag in England, or parading round wearing full Islamic regalia ?

Note where this happened: Henley, true blue Tory country. Clearly, the Nu Tories' definition of patriotism is kind of like their definition of 'family', namely the complete opposite to what any sane person would define it as.

Outrage D'Jour: Flag Day Edition

Some might say liberals have a problem with flags but that's not true - it's only their own country's flag they have a problem with. Well, that, and anything else that might be interpreted as patriotic.

Liberals claim to abhor flying the flag because it has too much historical baggage and too many extrimist overtones. All of which means it's lucky they've finally found a flag to fly with no connection to extremist lunatics or negative overtones.

Outrage D'Jour: Liberal Patriotism Edition

While libs ostentatiously hand-wring over whether or not arresting Mack the Knife will antagonise the yoof, some yutes don't qualify for the libs' special sensitivity program.

I guess this was offence under the 2006 Flag Offences (England) Act. Oops - I've just checked and, no matter how much they might want to, libs haven't yet succeeded in outlawing the English flag. Like I've said before, if the sight of some guy flying a flag sends you into a rage, it might not be the guy with the flag who's racist. That's goes double if it's a Chilean flag and you're in Santiago.

It Don't Mean What It Used To Mean

Let no man say Obama is detached from American life:

I've now been in 57 states. One left to go.

I'm just glad Dubya didn't come out with this one. Still, shouldn't elitists be a little more, y'know, elite ?

Anti-Military Smears 'Common' At The BBC

Speaking personally, nothing says 'reliable' like the unsupported testimony of a pair of convicted felons.

I guess those multiple layers of fact-checking aren't so important after all ? Oops - my mistake: the BBC did check with both the MoD and the Association of Chief Police Officers - both of which rejected these claims.

So, for those of you keeping score, on the one hand we have two convicted criminals claiming 'everyone does it', and on the other flat-out denials from the relevant bodies. And this is what the BBC considers a verified story ?

But don't say they don't support the troops...


UPDATE;

OK, I've been asked in the comments why I'd believe anything from ACPO ? Answer: 99.9% of the time I wouldn't, but as well as being lefty hacks, they're also the most hoplophobic organisation in the known universe. These are people who think GUUUUUUNS frequently break out of their cabinets and roam the street killing people - I can't believe they'd pass up the chance for more hysteria. On the other hand, the BBC never actually comes out with any evidence for widespread smuggling of guns, except the testimony of the felons in question.

Sure, opportunity probably means that soldiers probably smuggle more guns than, say, the staff at McDonalds, but how common is it ? We don't know - the BBC doesn't say, all it does is put up the convicts' claims up against the rebuttal from the MoD/ACPO as though the level of smuggling was a purely subjective matter: some say 'high', some say 'low', who's to know ? For an organisation that can't seem to use the word 'Muslims' without preceding it with 'vast majority of peace-loving', this lack of context is shameful.

Never Let Us Forget the Sacrifice of the Royal Army

No, I'm thinking this is No 10's own contribution to the festivities.

I'd take politicians talking about patriotism more seriously if every time they talked about Britain it wasn't blindingly obvious their entire knowledge of British life came from quickly scanning a one page cramming sheet on stuff Britainish people like.

Liberals 4 Immigration Control

Yep, they've finally found one guy they want to keep out:

He made his application this January, but was told by the Home Office that because on the same date five years earlier he was outside the UK he didn't qualify.

At that time he was actually serving on a British base in Germany.

He should have told them he was in jail for terrorism.

Honour Our Glorious Dead (Terms & Conditions Apply)

Not the least weird thing about the left's Pavlovian hatred of the Daily Mail is that the Mail's position on the war is identical to the left's (surrender now!). Doesn't that, in some sense of the word, make them spiritual Daily Mail readers ?

Ditto, in so far as leftists keep issuing forth pious sermons about the Mail's demagoguery, I trust they will be suitably outraged at the Mail's attempt at grave robbing. True, the DM would doubtless claim to be paying tribute to the sacrifice of our troops, but I'm pretty sure there's something missing here.

I guess the tributes to the guys killed in Helmand Province will have to wait until the Mail can work them into a call for surrender.

More Liberals "Confronting Racism"

Personally, I'm not a big fan of folks getting inked up, but the reasoning on show here is just classic:

He said he was told in a phone call by the Manchester force’s senior recruitment consultant: “A family who aren’t of English origin who see England on your arm could feel you might discriminate against them.

"We live in a diverse society and try to ensure we give everybody equality.”

I might be going out on a limb here, but if there are folks out there who automatically think natives can't be trusted to act as police officers, they might be the ones with the problem.