It’s Arsemageddon!

Hey, everyone! There’s a leadership contest in a (still, just about) right of centre party, and you know what that means! Huge numbers of MSM drones who’d rather drink battery acid than vote ‘leave’ rushing into print to tell conservatives who they should vote for.

Lest anyone still be tempted to listen to these tools, let review what’s happened to some of their other icons just in recent weeks:

Judging by the (non) success of Chuckup Ummah's bold new CuK/TIG/WTF Party, it looks like he may not be the British Obama after all. The slobbering coverage in the MSM was certainly Obamaesque, but it turns out they even let non-media people vote these days.

All those softball interviews on TV, and the only thing that got changed was the channel.

Meanwhile, lovable mockney Jamie Oliver’s restaurant empire has collapsed. It turns out the most popular thing people ordered in his restaurants was a taxi so they could go somewhere with decent food.

Once again, the MSM loved, loved, loved! his phony baloney LARPing as a rebel sticking it to The Man. Meanwhile, in the real world, people who have to pay for their meals with their own money don’t want to shell out three figures for bland food with a side order of pretentious posturing.

And then there’s Naomi Wolf, who's recently proven just why the phrase ‘feminist historian’ makes nearly as much sense as ‘vegetarian steak’. The MSM have spent years trying to convince us she is a great thinker, but it turns out that she doesn’t even understand that some technical terms don’t necessarily mean what you’d think they mean.

 I’m sure someone tried to explain this to her, but she got all in his face when he used the phrase 'laymen’s terms’ instead of 'layperson's'.

To the point, all three of these frauds were hailed by the MSM as iconoclastic thought leaders shaking up the squares and all three, in their various ways, turned out to be losers. There's a lesson in there if the Tories wish to learn it.

Or not as the case may be.

Empty Dress Quits Job

Don't be shocked, but the same cucks who landed us with an empty dress in No 10 are now busy trying to rewrite history to cast Terrible Theresa as some kind of tragic figure. Doesn't martyrdom require that you actually sacrifice yourself for something?

The defining feature of May's premiership has been the sheer vacuousness of it all, even to the very end. Consider this: in a speech of 948 words, the Useless One didn't mention any of the following:

Border Security

Law & Order

Defense

Legal Reform

Education

Infrastructure

In fact, what's worse is that she apparently couldn't even bring herself to say the word 'Britain' - all we got was a weaselly reference to the 'the country I love' (whatever that means).

Speaking personally, I can't help thinking that if you truly believe the British people are a bunch of bigots who need to be constantly harried by racial witchhunters, you don't actually love this country in any meaningful way.

For all the talk of muh ekwality the underlying assumption of Mayism was that us drones are too stupid to survive without an enlightened ruling class (hence: remainer). But where's this genius parked anyway?

Consider these lines:

For many years the great humanitarian Sir Nicholas Winton – who saved the lives of hundreds of children by arranging their evacuation from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia through the Kindertransport – was my constituent in Maidenhead.

At another time of political controversy, a few years before his death, he took me to one side at a local event and gave me a piece of advice.

He said, ‘Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise.’

He was right.

Seriously?

This is what happens when everyone in politics treats everything before 1997 as ancient history.

Meanwhile, the rest of us drooling masses can recall that when it comes to the Nazis and Czechoslovakia there was, in fact, quite a famous compromise made. 

Even Chamberlain got the right answer eventually. Meanwhile, Theresa May still doesn't get it. To borrow Len Deighton's line about Chamberlain at Munich, she was determined to treat the EU as though it was a respectable organisation with good intentions, as she simply had no idea how to deal with it if it not.

'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. 

How The Thatcher Death Parties Prove Socialism Sucks

No, not just on taste grounds, or even through exposing who's really the nasty side of politics. I'm talking about something more profound, more central to liberalism.

Consider those losers who blamed every single thing wrong in their lives on FATCHA! What's all that about? Isn't the whole point of leftism that we're all just the helpless victims of vast, impersonal social forces? If you spent sixty a hours a week for a decade building up your business, that just means you've won the lottery of life. Meanwhile, murderous lunatics are victims of society. Who's to say? We're all just, like, flotsam caught up in the tide of events.

Liberals thought that history was moving their way in the Seventies but apparently, even the wave of the future is susceptible to a hangbagging. The impersonal social forces met a forceful person and socialism lost. Consider the irony: the more liberals rant about about FATCHA, the more they're admitting that an individual can make a difference. Nothing is inevitable, after all.

Except liberals being whiny losers, but that's their problem.

Thatcher Destroyed The Nostalgia Industry

He's right about this, but it goes even deeper.

We keep getting told that the right needs to move on from Thatcherism (meaning: actual conservatism) but it's always from people who insist that the nothing that's happened since 1948 should in any way impact on the structure of the NHS, the War on Poverty is always within measurable distance of its end and all British industry really needs is the return of Fred Kite. When are the left going to move on from the Attlee years?

What Was It About The Hoplophobic, Race Hustling Fantasist That First Attracted Labour?

Like I keep saying, if liberals are the smartest people in the room, how come they keep falling for obvious hoaxes?

Didn't the idea of a British city with a death toll of Saving Private Ryan proportions strike anyone as a little odd?

Apparently not, in fact, rumour has it they only started to get suspicious when she claimed a ninth family member had been gunned down by Elvis with David Beckham driving the getaway car.

Other than that, there was no reason to suspect anything:

However, documentary makers have discovered that most of the people she had said were dead are still alive.

Gordon has even been seen chatting to some of them on Facebook.

Maybe they got better?

Actually, I think we dodged a bullet there: at least she didn't blame it all on our Eurocentric concepts of 'life' and 'death' and demand a huge grant to serve the needs of the Undead Community.

Mind you, in other respects she's perfectly well qualified to be a member of the Labour party:

However she later emailed the corporations to say: 'I have lost three family members and five very close friends who I consider as family. I realise I may have used words which could be seen as misleading and I do regret this.'

Misleading?

She'll go far.

Hospitals & Schools & Sneering

As far as this goes, I'm with the folks at Big Hollywood. Who wants to see a formerly great women struggling with age and decline? I prefer to remember her as she was at the height of her powers, in 'Kramer Vs Kramer' and 'Sophie's Choice'.

Joking aside, all the obvious points about the left's lack of class apply, plus extra points for gutlessness. I mean, really? This is what they call challenging work: beating up an elderly woman? What's next? A lacerating attack on the Corn Laws?

There's one more thing though. We keep getting told that the evil right doesn't want people to pay their fair share of taxes, but the self-same people have no trouble raiding the public purse to make petty political points. Will no one think of the children?

Cristina Odone: Still Worthless

Say what you like about Crissy, but she does perfectly exemplify every prejudices of the chattering classes. Take this article:

[Americans] are stuck in a Profumo Scandal/Burgess and Maclean era, where gays are blackmailed by the Soviets into betraying their country. During the McCarthy witch-hunt, the “Lavender Scare” was a campaign to identify and prosecute gay politicians: homosexuals and Commies were often conflated, both perceived as subversive and immoral sub-cultures.

See what I mean?

Using such a tired cliché would be bad enough, but with the Cold War now long won and files opened up on both sides of the Iron Curtain, we now know there were quite a lot of witches out there. McCarthy was substantively correct: US security really was utterly dysfunctional. Even mainstream leftists have given up talking about supposed 'red scares' in favour of 'four point six SEVEN actually' style quibbling.

More to the point though, Odone is not merely resurrecting a decades-old smear, she trying to turn history round 180. If McCarthy really was dead set on gay bashing he should probably have started with his own Chief of Staff, Roy Cohn. As it was, leftists had no qualms about gay baiting Cohn, McCarthy and the rest of his staff, culminating in the bizarre Army-McCarthy hearing where the Senator was accused of allowing his office to be used to pressure the US Army to give special treatment to a former staffer who been conscripted (clearly, a US Senator being questioned over whether or not a private soldier 'often' rode in the cab of trucks doesn't rise to the level of witch hunting).

Odone's position isn't just wrong, it's the opposite of truth. There's no actual point here except that everyone the chattering classes don't approve of is a knuckle-dragger. Hence, her claim to detect some kind of super secret conspiracy behind the Tea Parties. Nope, she doesn't have any actual evidence, but you know what those people are like....

As such, it's business as usual for the MSM. Odone's rubbishy article boils down to simple class hatred. McCarthy and the Tea Partiers were/are ignorant hicks rudely interrupting the proper business of government. Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't support her fellow Metropolitan luvvie, and odious weasel, Alan Duncan, must be some kind of nasty old bigot.

They may as well just stop pretending there's any logic there and just start issuing lists of who's hot and who's not.

Say, Why Does This Sound Familiar?

Further support for my theory that no, the Daily Mail is not a right-wing paper.

Leaving aside the Mail's shameless regurgitation of revisionist garbage, does this mean the Huns were bombed too much, or not nearly enough?

More importantly though, are the squareheads Rafophobic? After all, reading through the latest edition of the PC rules, it seems like we'd be quite within our rights to build a 15-storey Museum of British Aviation Achievement right in the centre of Dresden.

Shock New Report: Britain Sux!!!!!!

On the plus side, I think we can now safely say beyond a shadow of doubt that liberals hate Britain. What other interpretation is there for the reverence with which the BBC reports on this load of old pony?

Anti-British psychopaths led by a member of a foreign cult blew up British citizens, and this proves Britain sucks? Even from first principles, that'd be a stretch, but the logic on show makes 'I wouldn't start from here' sound like genius:

Al Hutchinson's report, published on Tuesday, found that by acquiescing to a deal between the government and the Catholic Church to move Fr Chesney to a parish in the Irish Republic, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was guilty of a "collusive act".

He said this had compromised the investigation and the decision "failed those who were murdered, injured or bereaved" in the bombing.

Hey, think how the bombers feel: they missed out on the chance to become Ministers of the Crown like Machine Gun McGuinness and pals.

Seriously, let's check the scorecard here: police follow the lead of the elected government in 1972 and go easy on Father O'Semtex = Bad Pigs! Headcases holding public office right now = hooray for the peace process!

Apparently, there's appeasement and there's appeasement!

Meanwhile, liberals supported the IRA all the while it was murdering civilians, but now it's all moot, they claim what they actually meant was 'let justice be done though the heavens fall'.

For further evidence of humbuggery, consider the BBC's description of Sinn Fein as 'the political party closely identified with the IRA'. That's how the BBC describes them right now. In 1972 the police were under political pressure and dealing with a background of sectarian lunacy, what's the BBC's excuse?

Indeed, if there're any parallels between 1972 and modern life, they lie mainly with the BBC's determination to duck the tough questions.

All of which leads to the wider issue: for years the left in general, and the BBC in particular, depicted Ulster Unionists as crazed bigots with some wacky, irrational fear of Irish Catholicism. Now we know the truth: the Catholic Church in Ireland was exactly what the Unionists said it was. True, the bowler hat thing is kind of weird, and the Pope probably isn't the Anti-Christ after all, but objecting to being ruled by people who think True Christianity means murder and ethnic cleansing, well, that used to be what the Left claimed to stand for.

But that was in the old days, before the Left was born again and liberals learned to accept the joy of hating Britain into their lives.

BBC Reveals How Wimminz Won The War

BBC Breakfast (motto: 'have some stupid on your cornflakes') has just run a feature on the 'hidden' story of the Battle of Britain. Brace yourselves: it turns out that it wasn't just about fighters, there was a whole radar and reporting network too!

Apparently, 'hidden' in Beebland means you actually have to open the book, not just look at the nice picture of the Spitfire on the cover. Seriously, who is this guy, the one who knew all about the relative turning circle of the Hurricane vs the 109, but didn't know the fighters were being guided by radio rather than, say, using sniffer dogs tied to the fuselage?

Needless to say, the only thing 'hidden' in the report - and barely at that - was the BBC's agenda. See, the thing is that most of the radar operators, and plotters, were members of the non-reversing community. That was the whole point of it all: women played a role in the battle too - just like every history of the battle makes clear.

This is the other thing about the BBC's crappy reporting. Not only is the bias bad in and off itself, it also blinds them to actual points. It is genuinely interesting to hear from a - still lifey - 100 year old veteran plotter, and there is a serious point here about how the real difference wasn't Britain's technically meh radar, so much as that it integrated with a purpose-designed home defence system. But no: chicks fought too, that's all you need to know.

Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Welcomes Newest Member

Telling Us Who They Are

Tom Hanks proves what we always suspected about Hollywood actors. Needless to say, he's not really talking about the war in the Pacific. Nope, he's making a heavy-handed analogy: 'Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?'.

Actually, he's right: it does remind me of modern politics. Specifically, the bit about liberals explaining how America being attacked by bloodthirsty fanatics proves America is evil. It shows not only just utterly rote this recitation of American sins really is ('was the Apollo program raycist?'), but also the essential narcissism of liberals. American history, and the rest of the world right now, is naught but a reflection of US domestic politics. That Imperial Japan, or the Taliban, might just be evil for their own reasons and in their own way, never occurs to them. They're only of interest in so far as they show America in a bad light. For folks who claim to believe in universal human rights, it's noticeable just how the universe seems to shrink to the places where US forces are engaged.

Mel Brooks Did It First

Hipsters' knee jerk obsession with sticking it to The Man reaches its logical conclusion.

Note too how the splendid senator from Wisconsin gets slipped in there along with the mass murdering leftists. No context required when dealing with the right, obviously.

War Crimes Then & Now

A Canadian pol makes the obvious point:

The Canadian government is dismissing calls for a public inquiry into the alleged torture of prisoners handed over by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.....

MacKay painted Colvin as having been duped by the Taliban and said Canadians are being asked to accept the word of prisoners "who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls.

Then again, it's not like the left don't have form for this, even to the point of being too much even for some fellow liberals.

All things considered, this probably explains why the left has now decided to give up on the whole 'reality' thing and concentrate its fire on imaginary war crimes (but on the plus side, at last the Umbrella Corporation will be brought to justice).

Celebrate Subsidence!

All things considered, you have to admire the MSM's ability to mark twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell without once explaining exactly how that particular event came to pass at that particular time. Maybe it was just built with shoddy materials?

Back in 1980 the same people - sometimes literally the same people - were busily explaining that the West would just have to learn to live with the Soviet Union - and 'respectable conservatives' were explaining that all we could do was to try and slow down any further expansion of Soviet influence. But then a funny thing happened on the way to a red planet.

In the teeth of all received wisdom, Ronald Reagan realised that the USSR was a bankrupt thug state, reliant entirely on its ability to repress its peoples at home and to export mayhem to everywhere else. Reagan didn't believe in détente, he believed in victory. Under Reagan, a newly-reinvigorated America bottled up the Soviet's conventional forces, while the CIA and friends not only halted Soviet expanision in the Third World, they bled the Soviets dry just keeping hold of what they had.

Look at Central America. Instead of Marxists sweeping to power in El Salvador, the Soviets were forced to pour in resources just to prop up their basket case Mini-Me government in Nicaragua.

To the point, Reagan almost single-handedly took on the idea that the decline and fall of the West was inevitable. On the contrary, he recognised that, properly harnessed, the strengths of the free world could make victory inevitable, and the utter depravity of Marxism made it a moral imperative.

Hey, the Red Army swept in Eastern Europe in 1945 (and again into Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 respectively). If all it needed to defeat these savages was 'peaceful protest', how come those lazy Krauts took so long getting round to it?

Questions D'Jour

Since the left's new rule is that anything goes short of Schindler's List, does that must mean they'll finally stop whining about St Augusto of Santiago? After all, he delivered his country from a brutal and chaotic regime, defeated a savage insurgency, rebuilt the economy and restored democracy - and all with less deaths than Stalin managed in the average day.

As for the CIA... hey, they helped win a global struggle against tyranny and still got comfortably out-paced on the bodycount front by tiny little Cambodia and its lovably authentic agrarian reformer Pol Pot.

Best of all though was Tailgunner Joe. Joe McCarthy never killed anyone, yet by exposing the US establishment's shameful refusal to deal seriously with Marxist infiltration of American institutions, he helped save the free world. Surely he's a hero we can all get behind?

World War II: Like, Totally Bogus

I'm guessing da yoof can't take all the blame for their problems with World War II history:

There were some pretty nasty things that went on in that war...

Liberals are such wusses.

'Respectable Conservatism' Goes Down In Flames

Regular readers will know that I don't have any respect for those folks who keep claiming that conservatives should crave the good opinion of liberal thugs. I think it's a fools errand, and NNW demonstrates exactly why.

Hey, libs, there's your 'bread not bombs' right there. But no: even carrying food into a starving city is just a cunning ploy by the Anglosphere to hide its inherent evil. Heads we're evil, tails we toss again.

Seriously, why even bother trying to reach out to these loons? There's no middle ground we can reach with people who call everyone who supports school vouchers a Nazi, even as they borrow talking points from actual, real Nazis.

Quote Of The Day

No real point to choosing this quote, except that that it shows just how loopy FDR's policies really were:

In the prosecution of the Schechter Brothers, a Brooklyn clan of Kosher butchers who were hounded by federales telling them what to do at every turn–a bizarrely intrusive and unnecessary law required “straight killing,” meaning the brothers had to sell the first chicken that came to hand in the coop instead of selling the chicken the customer wanted–Roosevelt suffered a monumental defeat in the Supreme Court after which one justice heatedly told one of Roosevelt’s confidantes that the Court would not allow FDR to centralize everything.