Technically, They Did Say They Were Against Inflammatory Rhetoric......

...They didn't say anything about inflamma-laboury rhetoric.

Apparently, Nigel Farage, Katie Hopkins and the Daily Mail are all responsible for some tool going crazy with his van, but the Guardian is just practicing responsible journalism when it comes out with stuff like this:

The family of a man who died following his arrest in London last week have demanded answers after the police watchdog said a postmortem contradicted their claim that he suffered a series of severe injuries.

So the evidence proves that they're lying liars, who lied, but the Guardian still makes them out to be concerned seekers after justice?

M'kay.

It's not even as if the left can claim not to understand the implications of what they're doing:

The watchdog said it was releasing those details because it was concerned about the “rapid spread of false and potentially inflammatory information” online about Da Costa’s condition.

I'd say we passed 'potentially inflammatory' sometime ago....

Then again, you can't say there isn't an element of poetic justice here: while the Guardian is trying to whip up an anti-police mob with phony baloney atrocity stories, the Filth themselves know who the real enemy is: losers on Facebook.

Just Saying...

Hey, wasn't it just a month ago that liberals were outrageously outraged that anyone could criticise a veteran?

Liberal Outrage: You Can't Say That (But They Can)

Don't be shocked, but it turns out that our would-be Twitter Police are graduates of the Al Gore School of Leading By Example. Apparently, threats of sexual multilation and AIDS gags count as cutting edge humour, provided you're really in with the in crowd.

They're not even hiding it any more, they really are arguing that they can say things other people can't 'cause they're, like, licenced media people.

All of which makes this call for civility halfway between the Duke of Wellington complaining that railways will allow the working class to move around and a consortium of buggy whip makers calling for a clampdown on the anarchic world of automobile manufacturing.

It's the perfect example of how liberalism has gobbled up socialism. Here we have the party of the left giving house room to a bunch of absurdly well-connected members of the New Class complaining that they let anyone on the 'net these days.

It's the perfect example of the fraud of political correctness. PC was always about giving soi dissant socialists an alibi for sneering at the lower orders. Keeping up with the absurd PC euphemism d'jour is just the left's version of knowing which knife to use for the fish course. Being unconcerned about the impact of open borders on public services is their equivalent of the old aristocracy professing to know nothing about 'trade', such proletarian matters are simply beneath them, doncha'know?

For proof of all this, consider the Twitter Wars Bandwagon Jumper In Chief: Stella Creasy. She claims to be worried, shocked, appalled and worried again about fellow media luvvies facing rape threats on Twitter, but what happened when girls in Rochdale were facing real rapes? The Criminal Protection Service and the Police buried these cases and where was Stella? Chaining herself to the railings, or happy to climb aboard the Good Ship Diden C Nuffinkguv? Need you ask?

Stella's the fearless fighter against fantasy rapes, who doesn't want to know about real ones. Truly, she is a heroine for our times.

Liberalism Ate Socialism

Looks like the lefties are having another one of their endless discussions about how they can bamboozle normal people into signing up to their loony agenda.

Laban's right about one aspect of the problem, but then there's stuff like this.

I don't think that's exactly how the Good Samaritan did it.

Charidee staff with gold-plated pensions is just one aspect of the sheer weirdness of modern liberalism. How did we get to the point where soi dissant socialists demand the right to bleed the public dry so as to feather bed their pals in the public sector (actual and fake charity divisions)? The working man is paying taxes to provide the bratty meeja studies graduate daughters of the liberal elite with non-jobs as recycling coordinators and five a day officers. Isn't that pretty much what the Labour Party was set up to oppose?

I See What You Did There

Dan Hodges is the latest of several million liberals to try and concoct a defence for our completely impartial national broadcaster and he's come up with a line that, in terms of sheer brass neck, is worthy of his old boss Princess Tony himself.

Apparently, we need to let the boys in blue get on with the job. 

You know, just like Blair did with the Macpherson report.

The left's record of serial cop hating aside, you have to admire the sleight of hand. Sure, it's a matter for law enforcement to investigate whether or not anything the BBC did rises to the level of actual criminality, but when it comes to justifying soaking the public for three billion and change a year, 'not committing any actual felonies' doesn't really cut it.

Who knows whether anything George Entwhistle has done is actually illegal? Not me, but I do know he acts like a slippery weasel when perfectly reasonable questions are raised by the people who employ him. Given the choice, who on Earth would employ him if they had to pay his salry with their own money?

This is what liberals do. They claim the right to torment private businesses in the name of accountability, but when their own people are under fire, nothing less than conviction in a court of law counts. Hence the BBC's new slogan 'You can't prove nuffink, guv'.

But What If MI-5 Robbed Grandma...

Liberals write girly plays about crusading liberal journalists fighting for the public's 'right to know' but it turns out that 'Freedom of Information' is only a good thing where it involves counter-terrorism or commerce. Once the topic is something that could embarass liberals, all bets are off. Consider this latest example.

The left will have to find a new argument after decades spent maintaining that robbery with violence is just something invented by the Tory Press to shift papers. And then there's the chance to check if the cops shows on TV are right, and most gang members are middle-class white kids...

Like I keep saying, liberalism can only win by fraud or force. Ordinary citizens reporting stuff that actually happened is their worst nightmare.

Quote of the Day

It may that those who see them on the news will find something distasteful in a minister trying to go about his business being booed, shoved and barracked by a collection of angry demonstrators, many of whom seemed to be untroubled by the pressures of full time employment.

Indeed.

That's the fault line in modern politcs: between squidy left of right of centre Tories on the one hand and faeces-flinging howler monkeys on the other. Liberals think the NHS is a winning issue for them, but with patients starving to death in hospitals, they may want to rethink their strategy of jamming their fingers in their ears and singing 'The Red Flag' every time someone critcises the system.

All the ideas for fixing the NHS are coming from the right. Then again, all the ideas for anything much are coming from the right. Progressives don't actually seem to want to progress anywhere, and instead the Labour Party has turned into the political equivalent of a Seventies bar.

All of which, as ever, proves Cameronism is garbage. There's the obvious point that the sleazy, split the difference, somewhere in the middle wheeling and dealing doesn't really work when your opponents are crazier than an LSD abusing hatter with post-traumatic stress disorder, but there's something deeper going on.

The Tories have, no matter how haltingly, pushed forward with a conservative policy, and the left has exposed itself as a bunch of screeching maniacs. Forget Special Ed's constant attempts to launch Even Newer Labour, these lunatics are the authentic face of the modern left and someone as smart as Cameron keeps telling us he is would be making sure the Labour Party own them.

To the point: liberals aren't having a meltdown because they can win in the marketplace of ideas. Conservatism wins every time it's advanced with conviction and vigour and to the extent that the left is now starting to lose ground on one of their core issues, it's a perfect rebuttal to the apologetic cringe conservatism of the 'respectable right'.

Liberalism: Multiple Fraud Disorder

Don't be shocked, but one of the most famous cases in psychology turns out to be a really huge fraud.

It's all very disappointing though. Alex Haley had just claimed to have tracked down one of the personalities to her home village.

Meanwhile, some of us are still wondering about people who claim to be Certified Super Genii, but keep falling for obvious frauds. Still, claiming a young girl has sixteen people living in her head is still less goofy than claiming dangerous felons can be rehabilitated by six months of group therapy twice a week, and at least 'Sybil' didn't take an axe to anyone's head.

Trembling in the Shadow of Latte (And Other Stupid Ideas)

In so far as Certified Liberal Deep Thinker Vince Cables' latest line of attack is to accusse the right of wanting to send kids up chimineys, it does ram home an important point: there are no good arguments left for liberalism.

People on the right are arguing that a recession is no time to be treating our last surviving private businesses as pinata donkeys full of employee freebies, meanwhile the left is relying on girly hysteria....

Actually, that same dynamic applies to just about any issue. That's the dark secret of liberalism: they don't want to keep university campuses free of conservatives because they think we're morons, they want it because they know we're not. Ditto, in any nation without a bloated state broadcaster with its hand on the scales, Vince Cable would be a national joke.

We should be mocking these people like the loons they are, but instead, the conservative establishment not only treats them like political heavyweights, it allows them to set the terms of the debate, as though there were any kind of meaningful middle-ground to be reached with people who compare opposing compulsory employer-paid aromatherapy with support for child labour.

Enough already, there's no reason to pander to the deranged. On the contrary, the more they have to come out and argue for liberlalism, the more obvious it becomes that 'liberal intellectual' is more a diagnosis than a description. Hence the liberal obsession with hate speech: they need to shut down the debate because every time they have to compete in the marketplace of ideas, they go bankrupt.

'Shut Up', Nick Clegg Explained.

Great though it always is to see Simon 'Straight Choice' Hughes coming out - as it were - for honest debate in politics, I'm thinking the Lib Dems latest meltdown might just point to a certain lack of self-awareness.

As I understand it, they're generously allowing folks to discuss AV, but only providing they discuss it in a way Lib Dems approve of.

Yep, they're all about The Democracy these guys. Not only is their position absurd from first principles, it's also a perfect metaphor for what's wrong with AV. We can discuss politics, but only providing we discuss it in approved ways, and we can vote, but only providing we have a voting system that guarantees the Lib Dems win seats no matter how many £9,000 fees they forget to mention before the last time they faced election.

Our Elite Aren't

Now that the Cenotaph sleaze has been identified as Charlie 'Comfortably Scum' Gilmore, we can at least dispose of one myth about the university system. No, the problem is not just folks at Fulchester Uni doing degrees in surfing. In so far as Gilmore is an Oxbridge student, he's supposedly as good as it gets.

And yes, in so far as Oxbridge is apparently struggling with the difficult question of whether or not to even suspend him (from college, not from a tree), I think we can ditch the whole 'tiny minority' defence too. In fact, I'm about ready to start a sweepstake on who'll be the first member of the cult to claim that people only criticise Charlie because they're too stoopid to appreciate the subtle nuances of his position.

All of which is by way of saying that I'm starting to think the credit crunch isn't Britain's biggest problem.

Turns out Whiskey has been thinking along the same lines, albeit in a US context:

The Ivy League and "meritocratic" elites are resented because they've failed...

Outside of Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, both of whom left festering problems of Islamic terror, to crop up with later Presidents, nearly every President since Eisenhower has been nothing but an abject failure. Amiable dunces, lecturing and preening moralizers, devious compilers of enemies lists, or all three in the case of Obama. Jeff Zucker, Harvard University, ran NBC into the ground. The Sulzberger family has made the NYT a national joke, destroying shareholder value not seen since the AOL-Time-Warner deal.

Ordinary people have given about fifty years to the elites, and have nothing to show for it but a ruined economy, cheap Chinese electronic junk, declining real wages since the 1970's, mass immigration turning them into sudden (and discriminated against) minorities in their own country, and the prospect of even more of the same. Meanwhile, the elites have put up a "No Ordinary Whites Allowed" sign in the means to entry into the elites: the Ivies and near Ivies.

A good comment by Novaseeker too:

This blind spot may be what causes the left to dig its grave, politically. They simply do not *understand* the real source of rightist populism (instead labeling it as being based on fear, which it isn't ... it's based on resentment at some Ivy-League jackass telling them what to do, as if he is better than they are -- because he *isn't*, he just has a degree

Actually, it cuts both ways. It isn't only that people don't respect a guy just because he has an Ivy League/Oxbridge degree, it's that these guys don't bring anything else to the table, and don't think they should even have to: they're super smart, what more do you need? Pay no attention to the wrecked nation behind the curtain.

That's the bottom line: from the Romans claiming no man is fit to command who cannot command himself, to the Victorian obsession with inculcating 'Officer-Like Qualities' into their schoolboys, to be elite was a matter of duty as much as privilege. Now? Not so much.

Consider Oxbridge's previous favourite baby seal. The most disturbing thing is these guys aren't asking for special treatment, so much as assuming it is the natural way of the world. Even the worst scumbag of a Victorian squire wouldn't go into print to defend his right to shoot at peasants without consequences.

The idea that privilege and rank is supposed to, at the least, confer a duty not to act out like a spoilt brat rather than a right to do so without consequences has apparently gone the way of the powdered wig.

Actually, I take it all back: Charlie is a hero after all. He's the giant turkey in the mine, telling us just how worthless is our alleged elite.

Liberals: Given Up Even Trying To Make Sense

Julie passes on this gem from the Guardian:

Impassioned responses to Beck's event, Dr Laura Schlessinger's recent N-word gaffe and offensive remarks about female supreme court justices are justified and necessary. But they must occur in the context of an unrelenting commitment both to change the institutions that provide platforms for such regrettable incidents, and to move away from soundbites towards a sustained discussion of racism and sexism in all its complexity.

A-huh! So we need to move towards a sustained discussion by silencing anybody who disagrees with the left.

Still, it's a perfect example of Liberal Turettes, the strange syndrome where leftists suddenly blurt out the truth about what they really believe. Whenever sane people hear liberal arguments advanced, they're naturally appalled, hence why the left's only hope of winning the debate is to silence the opposition before hand.

Da Moreonz Wuz Rite

On the plus side, I guess we now know why the Legal-Welfare complex was so anxious to stop anyone reporting on the case of John Venables, the completely rehabilitated murderer now back in jail.

Yes, indeed: Venables has gone down for nonceitude, and plenty of would-be emperors are facing a charge of indecent exposure.

Hell, even after Venables got picked up and the story of his drug-fuelled odyssey of violence started to leak out, our betters were busily explaining how, while they found these allegations 'troubling', one should resist the temptation to be seduced by the partial and subjective reporting of the so-called 'tabloids' into somehow questioning the carefully-calibrated process of...

GUILTY!

The results are in, and it turns out that the tabloid-reading, coupon-clipping, Ford-driving, Tesco-shopping, chip eating, TV watching, semi-owned-on-a-mortgage-dwelling scum were right. 100%, take it the bank, straight in the x-ring, bang on. Our self-appointed betters? Not so much.

All of which raises a philosophical question: if all the alleged super-geniuses were wrong, in what sense are they actually smart? Isn't superior cerebral functioning meant to prevent you talking rubbish?

Then again, there was always an essential tautology in their arguments: if you believed in the rehab industry, you were clearly super-smart, because only super-smart people could understand why the rehab industry was worth supporting.

Ah huh!

Now, in a carefully-controlled experiment, Certified Liberal Big Brains were given a metaphorical, and indeed literal, blank cheque to rehabilitate a loveable scallywag, and it all went a bit Pete Tong. Then they lied about it for years on end, claiming Brer John was both being closely monitored and under tight parole conditions - neither of which can possibly be true in the light of his ability to indulge in a consequence-free, coked-up brawlathon.

Indeed, the readiness of liberals to proclaim their faith in rehab, even absent any actual scientific basis, confirms what we always knew: liberalism really is a Godless cult.

All of which throws new light on liberal criticism of real religion. Transmutation might sound a little strange, but it's no sillier than maintaining that a convicted killer who gets out of his face on drugs and brawls his way round the one city he's banned from, is actually a pillar of the community. More to the point though, I guess it wraps it up for the whole 'paedo priests' thing.

The charge against the Catholic Church is that instead of punishing pervert priests they preferred to send them to therapy, then move them to a different parish where they could strike again. Sound familiar?

Of course, there is one obvious difference: in one case therapy was based on a load of superstitious nonsense, in the other it was based on Christianity. Then there's the other thing: at least the Church didn't announce that any pervert priests it moved where obviously completely cured and anyone who said otherwise was clearly some kind of subhuman monkey.

And let's not forget the other unlovely member of the hipster's pantomime cow. Yes, indeed: libertarians claim people should hire their own air force, crack should be available over the counter and the Royal Mail is part of a conspiracy to get people used to state employees intruding on their property. Meanwhile, state employees bleed the tax payer dry to provide bogus therapies, release dangerous lunatics out onto the streets, then lie about it for years?

Nope, nothing of interest there.

Consistent libertarians might claim it says something about the untrustworthy nature of state employees operating behind closed doors, but that would means rubbing ideological shoulders with the proles. Nope, if it came to a choice between opposition to statism and class loyalty to their fellow elitists, that was never going to be a tough one for libertarians.

The bottom line is that this is issue is the perfect microcosm of the divide in modern politics. For years the right - the real right - has allowed liberals to cast this as a debate between the unenlightened rabble and the sofiticayted elite. We were assured that the ability to put sneer quotes around words like 'evil' was, in and of itself, a brilliant argument. Meanwhile, to suggest that some things really were beyond the pale was evidence of near-retardation.

The point is not just that the right was right - these days, that pretty much goes without saying - it's that the left wasn't just wrong, their whole claim to intellectual supremacy was based on pseudo-scientific drivel and outright fraud. Liberalism is Scientology without Tom Cruise.

About That 'Tone' Thing...

Following on from the post below, one of the stupidest excuses for liberal thuggery is that, gosh darn it, they're all in favour of robust political debate, but they just prefer a civilised tone.

Kathy Shaidle drives a stake right through the heart of that idiocy here:

Finally, having run out of counter-"facts", sarcastic liberal now objects to your "tone."

You ask if one recites pi to the 50,000th decimal place without error, but does so in a Mickey Mouse voice, if that renders said recitation inaccurate.

Triumph Of The Shrill

As I understand the basics of the John Gaunt case, he compared a member of our ruling class to a Nazi, then got forced out of his job by a state body.

So no Nazi overtones there at all then.

Personally, I think we dodged a bullet. If calling them Nazis means they use the power of the state to hound you out of your job, think what they do when you call them perverts?

But what are the odds, hey? We've had eight years of BushChimpler slurs but with the Obamamessiah in the White House and Useless Dave in No 10, liberals are suddenly against harsh language. Can't we all just get along?

Well, no, actually. Consider the actual casus belli here: Councillor Heinrich's bonkers idea of keeping kids in care just to make some anti-smoking point. This isn't even a case of either/or. In contrast to the theoretical risks of passive smoking, the lousy outcomes for kids in care are a fact. Kids are having their lives blighted just because some spooky wierdos don't dig fags. This is the type of thing that's supposed to enrage decent people.

Still, now we have the High Court's verdict that's it's unreasonable to call Michael Stark 'ignorant', we have to.... well, actually this is the Blogosphere, so we can say what we mean, unlike the fearless MSM, which has fearlessly grovelled to the thugs at OFCOM. We can say that Councillor Michael Stark is a vicious little rat and a bully, a fascist dolt who's readiness to resort to thuggery is a testament to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. In so far as he supports using some of the most vulnerable people in society as sock puppets in his stupid crusade, he is a sicko, little deviant who's unfit to be trusted with the keys to the stationary cupboard, far less the fate of young children. 'Ignorant' is unfair only in so far as it suggest his problem is stupidity rather than depravity. On the contrary, his determination to choke off the public debate speaks to a man under no illustrations about the utter failure of his twisted ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

In fact, the only people worse than Herr Stark are the MSM drones who cravenly accept the right of agents of the state to do all but burst through the studio doors shouting 'Satire Squad! Step away from the mike!'..... all the while lamenting that their crappy, dull, government-approved stations are failing.

Once you have High Court Judges picking through commentary and deciding what's lawful and what's 'undirected abuse', the whole 'free speech' thing is DOA. You can't have worthwhile political commentary if everyone's looking over their shoulder for Big Government to suddenly leap out and announce that no one expects the OFCOM Inquisition (but, since we're on the subject of undirected abuse, what was the actual point of Jerry Springer: The Opera)?

Actually, all this is still giving liberals too much credit. This is an exercise in simple thuggery, and some of them aren't even trying to hide it: check it out.

Yes, indeed: state harassment of right-wing commentators is a good thing because it restricts right-wing commentary. A-huh!

All of which proves that, as usual, I am right: liberalism can only succeed by force or fraud.

Liberalism: Your F2 Philosophy

As in 'Force or Fraud' - the only two ways by which liberals can successfully advance their squalid ideology. Or sometimes both at once.

The Past Is A Different Country

...At least I'm guessing it is, otherwise liberals would be enormous humbugs.

And then there's this...

And this...

And this too.

Steyn D'Jour

Actually, looking at those last two posts, I'm guessing we should start running a sweepstake on how soon it'll be before the Guardian/BBC Axis of Wibble starts running with the line that the Fiona Pilkington case is a really huge witch hunt (except, you know, with actual witches).

But wait....here come our PC PCs. Wouldcha'believe it? They claim the Clan Scumbag needs a police guard after receiving death threats. Dang! I guess we'll all have to stop talking about it rather than risk provoking one of those rampaging mobs of conservatives that are so much a feature of British life.

So for those of you keeping score at home, when it comes to defending vulnerable families, the police's resources fell down the stairs, guv, but political theatre meant to intimidate conservative critics into silence? Go, go, go!

I bet it's all the fault of the Daily Mail. But for any of our intestinally-challenged 'respectable conservative' friends out there who may be tempted to ease off, here's a post from the Great Steyn with a relevant point:

But, if we're talking about letting the Left "set the rules," Mr. Marcus's column reminded me of a larger point: Don't take your opponents at face value; listen to what they're really saying. What does the frenzy unleashed on Sarah Palin last fall tell us? What does Newsweek's "Mad Man" cover on Glenn Beck mean? Why have "civility" drones like Joe Klein so eagerly adopted Anderson Cooper's scrotal "teabagging" slur and characterized as "racists" and "terrorists" what are (certainly by comparison with the anti-G20 crowd) the best behaved and tidiest street agitators in modern history?

They're telling you who they really fear. Whom the media gods would destroy they first make into "mad men." Liz Cheney should be due for the treatment any day now...

The media would like the American Right to be represented by the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, decent old sticks who know how to give dignified concession speeches. Last time round, we went along with their recommendation. If you want to get rave reviews for losing gracefully, that's the way to go. If you want to win, look at whom the Democrats and their media chums are so frantic to destroy: That's the better guide to what they're really worried about.

Exactly. The left's imminent whining about a backlash is nothing more than confirmation that they're caught bang to rights. If 'respectability' means turning a blind eye to the hideous results of leftist lunacy, we extreme extremists are better off without it.

Liberal Intelligence: All The Evidence For It Must Be Classified

For those of you keeping score at home, expecting A-Level students to know words and stuff is a sign that you're a degenerate elitist who wants to ride down the masses with your polo horse, but dealing with chemical spills, car crashes and burning buildings is just like working at a car wash, but with higher-pressure hoses.

Hmmmmm..... is anyone keeping track of just how many moron professions there are out there? It goes without saying that libs think Sandhurst is just a finishing school for the thick but rich. Ditto, the Five-oh. Businessmen? Fast-talking barrow boys the lot of them.... Apparently, whole swathes of the country aren't nearly as smart as the people who fall for the cunning Cadbury's Gambit.

Then again, if Sonia Sotomayor's point is so defensible, why do liberals have to lie about it?

It is, however, worth making two points about Sotomayor and the Ricci case. First, although some Republican senators and conservative pundits are likely to portray it this way, it would be silly to argue that reversal by the supreme court means that Sotomayor was legally "wrong". The case presented a genuinely difficult issue, and as reflected by the fact that it was supported by four supreme court justices, New Haven's arguments were perfectly plausible

I believe the legal term for that is 'garabage'. Here's reformed lawyer, and actual smart person, Ann Coulter:

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor's endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone."

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

In other words, every judge distanced themselves from Sotomayor's goofy reasoning. It was a 9-0 wipeout for the wackadoodle 'any chance of a lawsuit' test.

Hey, if libs are so smart, how come their arguments fall apart as soon as they're forced to state them honestly?

What He Said

NNW rightly ridicules the social shirkers latest tantrum. NNW correctly nails the argument that it's only a tiny minority of bad apples (hmmmm.... why does that sound familiar)? Even if it is a minority, the 'vast majority of peaceful social workers' sure aren't bending over backwards to root them out.

On the contrary, this campaign is evidence of just what a loony bizarro world social work is. They're trying to rebut the image of social workers as Marxist thugs by demanding retribution against people who publish stuff they disagree with? After all, stripped of blather, this is surely what they mean when they talk about holding their critics 'accountable'. Who except for a bunch of Stalinist nutters could ever think this sounds reasonable?

Hey, if social workers were really worried that the public was misinformed about their role, they could always campaign against the already ludicrous restrictions on press reporting of their activities. Funnily enough, they aren't. As ever with liberals, you have the right to their opinion or else!