A Week Is A Long Time In Liberal Posturing

Was it only last week that the L3 were flapping about the ‘Al-Jism’ memo ? Reports that an alleged memo may have included speculation by Bush on the possibility of bombing Al-Quaida TV were proof positive that the Chimpy McHitlerBurton was intending to establish the Fourth Reich of Jesus.

Not that the Left was motivated by Bush Derangement Syndrome. Nope – they were deeply concerned by issues such as press freedom and the like, which is exactly why they’ve reacted so strongly to recent events in Denmark.

No, wait...that’s not right.

It’s not like we need to speculate about alleged memos here – we know that these people really are under threat. Ditto, there’s nothing hypothetical about Islamopaths slaughtering critics of Islam. So where are the Left ? For that matter where are the Tory-In-Name-Onlys ? How come Bigoted Bozza isn’t making a big song and dance about his readiness to publish the offending cartoons in the Spectator, as he did with the alleged memo ?

This is what these people mean when they talk about moral principles: absolutely nothing. They have a hissy fit over a completely hypothetical threat but ignore a real one. Of course they do – the only consistent principle on show is the principle of sticking it to the West at every turn. Remind me again why we should take any of their moral posturing seriously ?

Now Can We Call Them Traitors ?

As I’ve said before, I’m often cruelly slandered as someone who is unreasonably rude to the scum-sucking Liberal vermin. That’s so not true. When I call Liberals treasonous rat weasels I’m not being abusive, simply technically correct. Consider cases like this.

We’re told Liberals are just as patriotic as us, but in a different way. No they aren’t: when anyone expresses patriotic sentiments they react like they're channeling Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist'. I don’t think it speaks to a great love of country when you’re arguing that the only people who express patriotic views are Nazis.

Liberals Ask: Is It Over Yet ?

Anyone see More4’s newspaper ads for the TV premiere of ‘Downfall’ ? A picture of Hitler with the tagline ‘There’s a happy ending. He dies.’ I liked it, but I can’t help thinking that that’s exactly the kind of comment which usually has the Liberals turning the hysteriator up to 11. Of course, Hitler's the only socialist you're allowed to criticise, but still can you seriously imagine the whining if someone on the Right celebrated the death of an Al-Quaida scumbag ? Nope – the L3 would surrender itself to girly hysterics.

Obviously, one factor is that the Left has – somehow – managed to introduce into popular culture the insane idea that the head of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party was a right-winger, but there’s more going on here. Consider how enraged Liberals are at the fact that America had slavery into the second half of the 19th century. Now, consider how enraged Liberals are that the Islamic world has slavery right now – which is to say ‘not at all’.

Maybe that should be the Left’s new slogan ‘Ready to take a stand just as soon as it becomes irrelevant’

One Industry Nu Lab Doesn't Want To Regulate

Yeah, OK, it’s great that at least one council's finally grown a spine and started nailing these sleazily rats, but what of the people behind it all ? Sure, they guys who score £7K off the council with a bogus claim need to be hammered, but how about the scumbag lawyers who seduce clueless idiots into making these claims in the first place ? They take a cut of the winnings, but if it all goes wrong they’re in the clear ? Is there any other industry where this sort of thing would be allowed ?

Not Remotely Safe For Work

But funny!

Who They Are

As an example of what the Conservative Party should be doing, consider events last Friday. When a government with a massive majority chooses to filibuster a bill, then that’s usually a hint that there’s something going on. Even by Nu Lab standards, the tactics used to block Anne McIntosh's Householder Protection Bill were exceptionally slimy. But who seriously expected anything else ?

Few issues expose Nu Lab's gap between image and reality like crime. They certainly like to talk tough, and they’ve even passed some good headline measures, like ASBOs, but when it comes down to the day-by-day stuff ? Forget it – whatever cosmetic changes Blair has wrought, when it comes to the war on crime large parts of the Party still instinctively favour appeasement. Now along comes a bill that is a perfect litmus test of attitudes to crime. Of course they couldn’t risk it coming to a vote. This would throw into sharp relief the gap between what these people say publicly and what they actually believe.

Nu Labour are telling us who they are. They’re admitting that behind all the faux reasonableness, the L3 are still a major force in the Party. When they block votes on topics like this, they’re admitting that if the public knew what they really believed, their popularity would crash like a stone.

That’s what the Conservative Party needs to be doing, forcing the Left to either reveal its true self or indulge in desperate evasions. Either way it’s a win. The trouble is that this strategy requires the Conservative Party to actually know what it is that the public is saying. Does anyone seriously believe that the Notting Hill Party does ?

I Liked Him Better When He Was A Liberal

Suddenly remembering he's pretending to be a Conservative, David Cameron has thrown some red meat to the Right - or, more specifically, he's thrown some red meat to a Guardian readers' caricature of the Right:

The music and games industry has to stop churning out material that celebrates aggression and violence. The drinks and entertainment industries must stop irresponsible alcohol marketing, and stop serving people who are drunk. Those who produce the media that children consume need to think harder about the social impact of their output

If nothing else, can we at least put an end to the idea that David Cameron is some kind of political Einstein ? Maybe there are a few Mary Whitehouses still floating round bemoaning the use of naughty words, but not enough to make it a smart move to tell five million Britons that you’re going to take their Eminem CDs off them.

In actuality, few British social conservatives are sitting in front of their PS2, ticking off each act of violence. Why would they ? As the old line goes, a pornographic society isn’t one with a lot of porn, it’s one which accepts the view of human sexuality that porn promotes. Similarly, caricatures to the contrary, those (few) socio-cons who complain about the games industry aren’t talking about the amount of violence, so much as the context in which these events occur. After all, the average level on a Medal of Honor game is far more violent than the whole of a Grand Theft Auto game, yet the latter draws far more fire (metaphorically speaking).

This is exactly why complaining about violence in games is moronic - the implication that Dreamworks’ recreation of Omaha Beach is somehow more offensive than Rockstar’s depiction of supercool bank robbers. Or, at least, it’s moronic to social conservatives. But how about David Cameron ? Isn’t GTA’s smirking attitude to drug abuse perfectly mirrored in the Notting Hill set ? How about its belief that all morality is really disguised hypocrisy ? Or the contempt for the police ? Und so weiter...

GTA isn’t destroying our society, but I’m not sure we can say the same about the mainstreaming of the worldview it portrays. Yet when we consider what’s doing the damage, we find that the strain of Conservatism championed by David Cameron has been a vigorous cheerleader for a large chunk of it. Rockstar are only making video games, Cameron wants to be PM – maybe we need to consider the social impact of that.

Feel The Love

A commenter at B-BBC points out this thread at the Al-Beeb.

Just in case the BBC performs one of its trademark stealth edits, here are some highlights:

have u seen the videos of british/us contractors killing people randomly on the highways??...its unbelievable, totally unbelieveable.

I cant stand the way these foriegn contractors are regarded as innocent.

They are nothing but part and parcel of the illegal war and occupation of Iraq. They are bloodsuckers who make a living on the backs of 10's of thousands of dead men women and children.

No mercy for them.

I don't see how Muslims can sit back and watch Muslims being tortured and killed. The Koran clearly states that it is the duty of ALL Muslims to defend Muslims lands which are being attacked.

But no, Muslims in the West would rather sit back, happy with their Toyotas and semi-detached houses. After all, it might be a bit dangerous in Iraq! People might get killed!

It is they who have sided with the kafirs. Allah will have no mercy for them.

The kafirs when they die go to hell.

Muslims should not fight other muslimss - but mankind was created weak. But Allah forgives all sins.

Dead Muslims have a hope, dead kaafirs have nothing.

Remember to watch out for all those Right-Wing Extremists!

Everyone Happy ?

OK, the puppy powered template appears to work. Mind you, I thought that about the old one until I tried firefox so what do I know ? Leave a comment if the template is still misbehaving, otherwise click and enjoy Michael Moore's new documentary 'Fahrenheit 1861'.

The BBC's New Mascot: A Greased Weasel

The BBC’s policy of 'all Anthony Walker all the time' continues today, but there’s a certain sadness at the heart of it. Try as they might, there’s one thing preventing this becoming the next Stephen Lawrence case. Them Scousers have gone and busted the killers. What’s a bunch of race-hustling nogoodniks to do ?

But wait…

They’ve got it! Claim that the lack of any real grounds for complaint is proof that their race hutling worked – also known as the ‘elephants painting their nails pink to hide in cherry trees’ strategy.

Still, the BBC must be feeling the heat. They’ve posted another one of their ‘Us ? Liberal ?’ articles. It really is a classic. Apparently, the BBC decides how much coverage to give stories depending on the views of the CPS and the police. Surely, such a policy allows the government to manipulate the reporting of crime ? Certainly, an analysis of the ‘raw’ statistics suggests that the real number of racial attacks is somewhat different from what certain people would have you believe. So much for that ‘challenging authority’ that the BBC is so proud of when the War on Terror is discussed.

Also, the BBC implies that most murder stories aren’t newsworthy because the killer is known to the victim, but that the racially-motivated slaying of a white guy wasn’t reported because that was the day Danielle Jones’ uncle was convicted of her slaying. A-huh. Given that the BBC’s annual income from the TV licence is £3 billion – just how much would they need to be able to cover more than one story per day ? Really – just give us a working figure here.

Besides, they point out that they don’t just downplay attacks against whites – they also shaft East Asians. Did we ever doubt it ? The only way you’re going to see slant eyes on BBC primetime is if they remake ‘Tenko’. It’s the Christopher Yates defence all over again. The BBC can’t discriminate against whites because it also discriminates against East Asians as well.

The central point though is the one the BBC will not address. The BBC suggests that it is self-evident that crimes classed as ‘racial’ should receive more coverage than those that are not. But why ? Isn't this, in and of itself, an inherently political position ?

We’re back to that thing, the metacontext, the unstated assumptions that underpin BBC reporting. Whatever attempts the BBC makes at ‘impartiality’ in reporting individual stories, it’s still a prisoner of the Liberal worldview. In the BBC bubble there’s no one around to say ‘hang on a minute, surely a crime is a crime is a crime’. This is hardly some outlandish view. I’m guessing that half the country (at least) feels that way – it’s just none of them have jobs at the BBC. That’s why it’s so nails-down-a-blackboard to hear these people preach the benefits of diversity.

Ramming The Point Home

Just about everybody has already linked to this but, hey, it deserves the exposure: what Nu Lab really thinks about the English.

Not Innocent

See, this is the magic of the Internet. Already, the wheels are coming off the ‘Christian Peacemaker Teams’ as wide-eyed innocents meme. That’s good, but I never bought it anyway. By now, the evidence is well and truly in. No matter how deluded anyone was about the – ahem! – insurgents in 2003, few people can be under any illusions about the nature of the enemy now.. To put it another way, the only way you can not see these people as savages is to be so thoroughly-immersed in the BushChimpler kool aid as to believe that all those decapitations are actually being carried out by CIA officers in a film studio at Area 51.

These people aren’t Luke Skywalker handing themselves over to Darth Jihadi claiming they can still sense good in them. They just don’t think they’re evil in the first place. These people are so wrapped up in their hatred of the West that they cannot conceive that anyone who hates the West nearly as much as they do can be a bad guy. They’ve been framed, the West made them do it and what about the 200 million homeless Americans anyway ? It isn’t their naiveté which leads them into trouble, it’s their hatred.

Troops Fall Into Hands Of Crazed Militants

Gosh, just a week after the chattering classes were shocked by the Royal Marines attempt to get an Arts Council grant, it turns out that Princess Tony has arranged for the Armed Forces to be handed over to the bewigged fools. Isn’t it funny how often that sort of thing happens ?

Today's Bill will set up a joint prosecuting authority in place of the existing Army, Navy and Air Force prosecutors…

Like the three bodies it replaces, the joint prosecuting authority will come under the "superintendence" of the Attorney General. That term, first used in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879, is deliberately vague, meaning pretty much what people want it to mean.

I’m guessing calling it the ‘Office Of Screwing The Forces’ would be a little too obvious. Consider for one moment the mentality which compares the Forces with the Courts and decides the Forces need reform.

Lest you be in any doubt what these people intend, try this:

Lawyers should advise military police which questions to ask in interview and what evidence is needed to secure a conviction….While this may not be practicable in a military war zone, modern communications should permit a much greater involvement by lawyers.

This makes LBJ picking the next day’s targets over lunch look sane. Some Liberal freaks are going use satellite links to persecute troops in the middle of a war zone ?

These reforms are a train-wreck. They’ll deliver over one of the few functioning institutions in modern Britain to the very people who have done most of the damage. You couldn’t fill a minibus with actual, normal people who’d think this is a good idea. No wonder the L3 are reduced to releasing tapes of ‘Marines Gone Wild!’.

Is It Just Me ?

Or are other people getting a huge whitespace when they try to view here using Firefox ?

More Nu Science

See this is what I was writing about here. Here's Lord May of Oxford, president of the Royal Society, no less, giving his considered opinion on science:

Fundamentalism is hampering global efforts to tackle climate change, according to Britain's top scientist.

'Fundamentalists' - this is the language of disinterested seekers after truth ? I'll bet those folks studying, say, the rise in temperature on Mars will be surprised to learn they're not practicing Real Science.

In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford will say scientists must speak out against the climate change "denial lobby".

Say, that phrase sounds familiar - anyone know what other form of 'denial' is commonly talked about ? Lucky for him Godwin's Law only applies on the 'net.

He will warn core scientific values are "under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East".

Yes, Prof. Cutting heads off is exactly the same as mocking econuts. Is this bloke getting £500 for every L3 article of faith he spouts ?

Lord May completes his five-year term as president of the UK's academy of science on Wednesday.

"Ahead of us lie dangerous times," he will say in his fifth and final anniversary address.

Well, you know, some of those test tubes can be pretty sharp when they break.

There are serious problems that derive from the realities of the external world: climate change, loss of biological diversity, new and re-emerging diseases, and more.

See, that's why we're killing off all those species, so there's less places for new diseases to hide.

Many of these threats are not yet immediate, yet their non-linear character is such that we need to be acting today.

And, if you sign up today, you will get our special, Five-Star Executive Club membership for the price of a Standard memebership.

And we have no evolutionary experience of acting on behalf of a distant future; we even lack basic understanding of important aspects of our own institutions and societies.

In his case, who could disagree ?.

Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason.

As opposed to the deeply scientific technique of calling your opponents brainwashed morons.

Lord May will say that fundamentalism applies not only to organised religions but to lobby groups on both sides of the climate change debate.

The climate change "denial lobby" and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) opposed to nuclear power are not exempt from a denial or misrepresentation of scientific facts, he told reporters in London.

Translation: scientists will team up with econuts to work over eviiiil kepitalists, but the Green Weenies better not do anything to derail the gravy train.

Speaking in a week that saw the opening of climate talks in Montreal, and the re-opening of the nuclear power debate in the UK, he said there had to be open questioning and inquiry of such issues.

You know, kind of like alluding to Al-Quaida and Nazis when talking about your opponents.

The huge problems with nuclear power had to be weighed against the problem of putting more carbon into the atmosphere and the future potential of land and sea turbines, he said; "rather than ruled out of discussion on what you might call some fundamentalist belief system".

"I'm serious, dammit. Leave our gravy train alone!"

Another danger to the enlightenment of science came from the growing network of fundamentalist and lobby groups in the US that campaigned for creationism to be taught in science classes, he added.

Call us back when the first plane hits MIT.

By their own writings, this group has a much wider agenda which is to replace scientific materialism by something more based on faith," he said.

As opposed to the scientific community, who's approach is completely the opposite. After all, atheistic materialism worked so well in the last century.

He called on scientists to take a more active role in speaking out against so-called "intelligent design" and other threats to modern scientific values.

Man, maybe there really is something wrong with science if a bunch of hicks teaching the kids that fossils are one of God's little jokes is enough to have these folks going to Condition Red.

The only thing I can see scientists doing is being more energetic as citizens - getting out there and trying to convince people that that's not a very wise way to behave," he explained. "That's no easy recipe.

Well, now, that's kind of is the thing, init ? Seems to me that science went off the cliff precisely because scientists started to become convinced that a PhD qualified you to talk about everything from artillery to Zoroastrianism. Take the whole 'America as Theocracy' meme. We're meant to believe these people are worried about religion having too influential a role in American life, but everyone knows these people have always hated religion anyway, so how seriously can you take their pious talk about 'scientific values'.

For that matter, where are these scientifc values ? There's plenty of good science that contradicts the theory of anthrogenic global warming. Surely that should be taken on its merits, rather than merely calling people names ? But no, resembling nothing so much as the medieval church, the scientific community continues to insist that they alone can interpret data while opponents are isolated loons. Here's Michael Crichton on that point:

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Indeed. It's a sign of the times when the bloke who wrote Jurassic Park seems better informed about the nature of science than one of Britain's top scientists.

Well, At Least There's Some Order To It

Via Mr Shiny New Comments, we find the rules of PC. Just in time too, otherwise we'd be left wondering why after all that yapping about Islamophobia, the BBC has ignored an actual, proven case of a guy being forced out of his job because of his religion.

I guess the rules must also explain the BBC's sudden backflip with racially-motivated violence. Back all those seven days ago, the BBC were insisting that every fact be carefully confirmed by a team of top scientists, theologians and VC winners. Now we're talking about the Anthony Walker case and it seems there's almost nothing the BBC won't publish. Take this 'ere piece by David Green. Consider the sheer chutzpah of the title: " Murder 'proves racism exists'". Yes, indeed, David and what's more, some of us were saying that last week. Given the content of the article, I think a more accurate title would be 'Race Hustlers Speak Out'. Still, we need to consider the dangers of racism, dangers like allowing bigots to take an isolated incident and try to weave it into some kind of broadcast condemnation of a whole ethnic group. We're just lucky the BBC is on the alert for that kind of thing sneaking in.

Outsource Liberalism

What does it say about the strength of the case for modern Liberalism that the mere propspect of someone being allowed to speak against any of its tenets sends Liberals into a frenzy ? Insecure, much ? Still, today's farce gives me an idea.

Truth be told, most Conservatives will admit that, all things being equal, they'd rather not have large chunks of the fauna and flora of this planet go extinct. Where we differ from the idiot faction is that we recognise pious hopes and prayers to Gaia aren't cutting it. The unromantic truth is if we're going to 'save the rainforest' then the best way is to show how we can make it pay. So here's my answer: replace Liberals with chimps.

Think about it: chimps are superb climbers and can make loud shrieking noises - that's practically every Greenpeace protest there's ever been right there. Plus, not only do chimps have better personal hygine, their use of tools indicates far superior reasoning skills than the average Liberal. True, chimps often take drugs, but only as part of controlled experiments, and what's more, chimps never sign off on the sick for six months becuase they're like, totally stressed out.

We need an exchange program, we'll hire our little forest mates, and send Liberals down there to experience the warmth of Gaia's embrace. Three years work should be enough for the average chimp to safeguard his forest forever, while the Liberals will help to enrich the local environment (particularly for the lions).

Watch Out For Those Right-Wing Extremists

Seems like only last week Liberals were preparing for another round of witch hunting in our nation’s schools. Yep – here it is. All the usual suspects are present and correct: effective race relations policy...community links…strong guidance…successful racial equality framework...local community…. yhrgjedojmfm

Sorry, just dropped off there.

Funnily enough though, it doesn’t seem to be working, at least to judge by the case of Parveen Sharif. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that she didn’t know her brother was homicidally-inclined – and avoid the obvious corollary that she should then be fired as clearly being too stupid to teach anything more taxing than Basic Breathing. In fact, we’ll even forget that the bar for firing is lower than that for a criminal conviction, and just consider whether a Native British teacher who celebrated the murder of Anthony Walker would merely be asked to undertake not to repeat his comments.

As it happens, the law requires schools to report any racist incident to the local education authority, but now we find that one of the reasons for excluding Little Miss RoP’s previous shenanigans from evidence was that no one at the school had thought to make a written report. What does that say about the culture in our school staff rooms when no one apparently feels that expressing support for mass murder is, quite literally, worth taking note of ?

Our Long National Nightmare Continues...

Will it ever end ? Yep, the Left are busily beating a dead Brazilian again. Still, I can't help but notice a certain desperation about the latest farcical iteration.

I remember when the L3 were working themselves into a frenzy about police death squads spraying fire around crowded train carriages, now they're down to picking through public statements, trying to catch the Police in a contradiction.

That’s a bit of a come down, from accusing the Police of operating secret assassination units, to trawling through documents in a desperate search for ‘Gotchas!’. Still, you know how the Left are about lies, which is why they'd never do something like, ooh, I don't know, try and imply that the police were using illegal ammunition when there's absolutely no legal basis for that claim.

Still, these folks do have point about lack of transparency in this case. Think how long it took to find out that, yes, St Jean the Martyr was an illegal immigrant. I just don’t think these people are the obvious choice to complain about it – not with the difficulty there is pinning down exactly who these people really are (or who’s paying for this campaign). Mind you, it would be interesting to hear our newly prissy Left give us their considered opinion on the morality of political activists passing themselves off as merely concerned citizens.

Liberals Discover Huge Conspiracy By Adolf McChimpler (Part MMDCV)

There are plenty of advantages to life as a Conservative as opposed to a Liberal. Better personal hygiene for one. Still, every now and then I find myself envious of the sense of wonder every new day must bring when you can’t remember anything that happened more than two weeks ago. At least, I’m assuming Liberals have no memory. After all, it’s the best explanation for their latest excuse for manufactured hysteria.

We’re told that Chimpy McHitlerburton wanted to bomb Al-Quaida News. ‘Bomb’ presumably as opposed to anything more controversial such as pressuring governments to withdraw their reporter’s visas, jamming their transmissions, cyberattacks or paying some local naughty boys to give their transmitters a C4 upgrade.

So, OK, the charge is absurd from first principles, but look who’s making it – yep, the Daily Mirror. Hey – at least they don’t have a proven record of publishing fake material to try and undermine the Allied war effort. Oops.

Equally absurd though is the Left’s girly hysteria about the idea of bombing an enemy TV station. To listen to them, you’d think they’d never heard such talk before. We don’t need any sleazy tabloids to tell us what Slick Willy felt about armed TV criticism.

You almost have to remind yourself that there really have been a number of bombings in this war, in places like London, Madrid, Bali and the like. If Liberals had expressed half the outrage about them that they’re generating about this absurd non-story, we might almost take their moralising seriously.