Liberals' New Discovery: Money Is Good

Remember the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey ? The primates stumbling around doing monkey stuff until one of them realises he can use a bone as a tool, thereby setting in motion the evolution of human culture ? Liberals have just picked up the bone. Their revelation is that people are motivated by money. Crazy, but it could just be true! This has prompted a Liberal think tank to come out against perverse incentives in the tax and welfare system which punish those who work hard.

Just kidding!

No, what the Liberals have concluded is what they always conclude: more pay for public sector workers. Is there anything in Liboland which isn't evidence of the desperate need to throw more money at the social working classes ? As Snafu says, couldn't we get the same effect by cutting the pay of the rest ?

You have to admire the chutzpah though. Liberals have spent years describing everyone in the private sector who makes more than £6 per hour as fat cats while waxing lyrical about the selfless Mother Teresa's in the public sector. Now, it turns out that the only way you can get medics to treat people from the ugly part of town is to bribe them. Very alturistic!

How To Get A Femiloon To Shut Up

Just as a snapshot of where we are in the culture wars, a rapist has managed to evade justice by the simple expedient of not turning up in court, instead sending a sick note. What is this ? Primary school ? But that's not the best of it - all this happened nine months ago but the police have only got round to releasing the details. This is the modern Britain David Cameron professes to think is just ducky.

There's a wider issue here though. The femiloons normally need sedating to stop them wallowing in victimhood. To listen to these people, you could think no women ever makes it alive to 60. In fact, to hear their idiot yapping about anorexia, you could think 21 would be a ripe, old age for a woman. Now, here we actual brutality. The system has let a perverted monster out onto the streets. No need for hand-wavey talk of 'intimidating atmospheres', this is the real thing. WARNING! WARNING! Degenerate Predator Out On The Streets! But no, these people are prepared to go nuclear when some guy calls a female colleague 'fat', but faced with a real savage 'zero tolerance' suddenly turns into 'quite a lot of tolerance actually'.

Why is this ? Well, the femiloon movement does have at its black heart a hard core of feminazis, who think the only good man is a dead one, but the brains of the operation are fully signed-up Kool Aid drinkers. They'll rant about men, but only when it suits the objectives of the Gramscian Left. Just as the supposed leaders of the black community handed 'their people' over to the gangsters, so the femiloons have no compunction about throwing a rape victim under the bus rather than give aid and comfort to the real enemy (ie Conservatives) by admitting that, yes, our L3-infested court system is dysfunctional (and that counts double when the scumbag-in-question is a RoPer). Having rapists walking the street is one thing, but Conservatives on the bench ? Now that's really a femiloon's nightmare.

Media Not Mentioning The War Enough

Guess the report into the death of St Jean the Martyr must be even more devastating than we thought. Sir Ian has clearly chosen to follow the Greg Dyke ‘Liberal Martyr’ route. In fact, the subject of choice is even Dykesque – yep, Sir Ian alleges that the media is institutionally racist. And no, he doesn’t mean it in the sense that Laban does.

Of course, you don’t get to be a true Liberal icon simply by coming out with moronic comments, no, they’ve also got to be crude and offensive. The bar is set high, but Sir Ian clears it easily with an attack on the coverage of Soham. He claims that he can’t understand why Soham was such a big story. This is one of those formulations that raises the question: is he really that stupid, or does he just think we are ? Two pretty young girls in a picture postcard village disappear during the height of the silly season, with a photograph taken hours before they were lost and the press jump on it ? Sounds like a job for Mulder and Scully.

In so far as Sir Ian has any kind of point, yes, the media does soft-peddle ethnic crime, but they’re not the only ones. Here’s a poser for Sir Ian: which body shut down a team dealing with the Yardies because they were worried that it unfairly targeted blacks ? I’ll even give him a clue: quite of lot of people you know work there.

The bottom line is that the media doesn’t downplay the extent of the mayhem in ethnic areas because they’re controlled by the Right. Quite the opposite. Seriously, can you imagine if the Daily Mail did an eight page special on, say, the Yardies ? Liberals would be calling for air strikes on their presses.

That’s the irony right there. You couldn’t get a clearer example of why the media avoid reporting on controversial issues in ethnic areas than the sight of a prominent Liberal conjuring up a racial witch hunt despite a complete absence of any of that 'evidence' thing.

Mark Oaten Called And Said You Were A Perv

Hey, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, bashing Google's grovelling to the Chinese - a bit of low-risk anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism combined. Never mind that neither China nor Google are actually known for their vigorous support for Cthe Right, the BBC will take any excuse to hammer home its favorite themes. Which turned out to be the problem. After all, it's not exactly a secret that the BBC spins the news. In particular, so blatant has the spinning become in the handling of viewer comments that the relevant section is near universally known as 'Don't Have Your Say'. No surprise then that the BBC's moralising about somebody else suppressing people with the 'wrong' views caused such a firestorm that even the BBC was forced to allow some dissenting voices to be heard: read and enjoy!

Latest Scores

Just to bring you up to speed on the L3’s attempts to draw a moral equivalence between Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza, at Nazi Nick’s trial they’ve been discussing the BNP’s claim that the folk who barricaded a group of people in a building then set it on fire should have been charged with attempted murder, while at Abu Hamza’s trial, he’s been explaining how the Jews run the media.

See ? They’re exactly the same.

Wrong Type Of Butt

The Treason Party is all-a-flutter. Apparently, a senior member of their front bench has been outed as a hetrosexual. Seriously though, the humbug is reaching astronomic levels - check out the comments on the relevant posts over at Guido's place. Suddenly, the cheerleaders for elephantine government have discovered the benefits of seperation of the personal and the political. All of which just leads to the old question - is it ironic, or just stupid, that the L3 are dealing with scandals centred in lage part around charges of hypocrisy at Lib Scum MPs by taking such a hypocritical line ? This time last year they weren't so sanguine about firing a guy for taking part in a perfectly lawful activity with a male friend.

Big Ron Should've Been A Liberal

It's hard to feel sympathy for Ron Atkinson, but it's even harder to turn a blind eye to the fact that nearly two years later he's still being vilified over using a racist epithet about a black sportsman, when if only he'd thought to have opposed the War on Terror he could have dredged up an ancient racist caricature with nary a peep from the self-appointed Guardian's of Racial Justice - or indeed the actual Guardian (Of course, Galloway is rumoured to have apologised soon afterwards, claiming he'd always respected Rodman's 'natural sense of rythmn').

Now This Is Funny

Barrymore 's new series.

Liberals' Bold New War Plan: Surrender

OK, we have a comedian in Britain who dresses like Osama Bin Laden, so I guess there’s certain symmetry in Osama paying tribute to Monty Python’s Black Knight and offering to call it a draw. Apparently, if the US throws the towel in, then he’ll call off his terrifying campaign of hiding in spider holes in north west Pakistan and issuing tapes every 18 months. Otherwise, he’s threatening to escalate to issuing interactive DVDs with deleted scenes and director’s commentary.

Actually, I favour sticking with Plan A: kill them all. After all, at the moment Al-Qaeda is just about the only multinational in the world that isn’t faced with crippling pension costs. By an amazing coincidence, every time the brainless cowboys fire a hellfire missile into a building full of women and childen and cute kittens, supersonic kitten shrapnel flies across the road and hits a senior member of Al-Qaeda who just happens to be walking past. Very spooky.

Not that you would know all this if you were reliant on the MSM, just like you’d be surprised at finding that Osama has demanded the US pull out of Iraq. Huh ? Is this the same Iraq that’s irrelevant to the War on Terror and where the US is hurtling towards inevitable disaster ? Then again, it must be hard to pick up the BBC from inside a spider hole. He probably doesn’t know he’s on the verge of total victory.

Needless to say, the news that the world’s deadliest terrorist has started issuing whiny messages asking why we can’t all just get along has reinvigorated the anti-war Left, as they realise if they don’t get a move on there’ll be no enemy left for them to surrender to. The fact that previous history suggests that Bin Laden isn’t really a negotiations kind of guy has been dismissed as irrelevant. All of this just proves the truth of the old saying: those who will not learn from history are doomed to become Liberals. Of course, given Liberals’ trainwreck understanding of history, it’s not surprising they so utterly fail to learn its lessons.

Take, for example, the L3’s favourite talking point this week: we should negotiate with terrorists because it was through negotiating with terrorists that we managed to achieve peace in Ulster. Now, this is true to a degree, the degree being ‘not at all’. What really happened is this: for thirty years terrorists attacked this country and Liberals helped them any way they could. While some old-style Leftists served this country with honour, Liberals waged a full-spectrum campaign to try and lose us the war. They had no real success until the Caligula government in the mid-90s, at which point they were able to screw things up sufficiently to leave the Tranzi vermin that came next with an open goal. The people who handed over millions of British citizens to terrorist thugs should never be allowed near government again, but now they think their experience in losing a war proves some more general point. The only worthwhile lesson to be drawn from events in Ulster is this one: Liberals lose wars.

Liberals Court Disaster

Looks like the L3’s brilliant strategy to use the power of the State to nail Nick Griffin has worked about as well as all their other great ideas. Having spent years trying to deny Gruppenfurher Nick any kind of platform, the L3 have now decided to give him a chance to address the nation. Now even the BBC has to admit that one of the shocking charges against Nasty Nick is that he predicted that the London transport system would be attacked by Muslims from Yorkshire. Is a statement still ‘inflammatory’ when it’s an entirely accurate prediction of future events ?

The other half of their cunning plan is in falling apart too. After years of turning a blind eye to Captain Hook’s rantings, the government has finally taken action and, wouldcha’believe it, his case is up in court at the same time as Nasty Nick’s. It’s down south somewhere apparently - I’m not sure where, but I’m guessing it’s somewhere with really poor transport links, since that would account for the absence of soi-dissant anti-fascist protestors outside his trial.

Really, I have to ask, how would the L3 argue if they didn’t have moral equivalence ? The trouble is that there’s nothing actually equivalent in the treatment of these two beauties. On the one hand, the L3 – both inside and outside the justice system – are carefully parsing every word Nick Griffin ever said, trying to find grounds to be offended (“what exactly do you mean when you say you ‘would like two sugars’ ?”), meanwhile the L3 are bending over backwards to hide the sheer lunacy of Captain Hook’s rhetoric.

The real equivalence between these two is that one is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam and the other is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam. Both have, in their own way, contradicted the L3 line that Islam is a philosophy of fluffy bunnies and lovely rainbows.

It need hardly be said that these prosecutions are a dagger aimed at the whole concept of free speech, but there’s an even greater danger. Long before July 7 Nick Griffin was an L3 hate figure for predicting terrorist attacks on London by British-born Muslims, meanwhile MI-5 managed to miss the elephants in the room right up until they started exploding. The L3 claim we can’t let the BNP speak freely because that would create an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’, then they claim to be shocked that employees of the same State which persecutes a guy for predicting terrorism by home grown Muslims fail to detect a terrorist plot by home grown Muslims. What would the atmosphere have been like for someone in MI-5 who predicted these attacks in March 2005 ? More to the point, in the light of these prosecutions, what’s it like now for the guy who’s predicted the next strike ?

Limits

Turned on the TV the other night to see some dishevelled looking guy babbling incoherently about religion. I thought it was a program about Care In The Community, but no – turns out the guy in question is Richard Dawkins, Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Hey – if this guy wants to spend his time calling people stupid and evil why can’t he get a blog like everyone else ?

More to the point, if the geeks are going to make a serious effort to convince us that they’re not really weird and arrogant, could they choose a less provocative title for their front man than ‘Professor of Public Understanding’. We understand you just fine, we just think your ideas suck.

Anyway, Laban points out an interesting post about the not-so-great man here. Cobb nicely nails what's really wrong with Dawkins' ideas:

This is truly dangerous. It means that we will become dependent on some institutions that correct us, that perfect us. By definition the budget for such an institution would have to be infinite, because the capacity of humans to be wrong, to be immoral, is practically insatiable. I think Dawkins or anyone could be quickly disabused of this notion simply by dropping them into the appropriate Third World asylum for a seven year stint.

Indeed, the vision of a super-state, smoothly correcting each and every human defect can't hardly be anything other than a call for a truly elephantine state. It is entirely characteristic of Dawkins that he fails even to consider that government may sometimes be the problem. More to the point though, this highlights the most obvious omission in Dawkins denunciation of religion.

Religion is in one respect like monarchy: its importance as an institution is not only in the power that it holds, but also that which it denies to others. Consider the Ten Commandments. Here, for the first time in history, was a set of laws that applied equally to everyone - indeed, the Old Testament is full of kings defying God and getting the chop. The point is that religion provides a set of moral values independent of the government of the day. Think about the prosecution’s central point at Nuremburg: an order may be perfectly lawful, yet still wrong. As such, religion puts a roadblock in the way of the very kind of utopian totalitarianism that Dawkins advocates. Here’s Dawkins again on the principles he thinks we should be governed by:

All moral questions, from incest to human cloning, should be resolved using utilitarian criteria, Dawkins argues. “They can and should all be discussed by utilitarian moral philosophers, who’ll ask questions about the balance of suffering and happiness. This is a very different way of doing morality than the absolutist way, which supposes some things are absolutely wrong since we know and feel them to be so. Our morality should be governed by utilitarian claims.”

No room for misquote there. Equally, Dawkins is admirably unequivocal about what it would take to sustain such a society:

It’s probably too strong to say the State should have the right to take children away from their parents”, the professor confides. “But I do think we, as humans in general, have got to look very carefully at the rights of parents – and whether parents really should have the right to indoctrinate their children.

Say what you like about the Church, but do you see anyone arguing that parents who bring their kids up in an atmosphere of militant atheism should have their kids seized by the State ? Then again, these folks probably don’t have the reserves of faith that Dawkins has. Sure, Dawkins may jeeringly point out contradictions in the Bible, but look how he body swerves around the murderous savagery of socialism (both national and international). Wasn’t science supposed to be the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact ? Here are 150 million of them (and counting) but religion is still the root of all evil. Huh ?

For that matter, what evidence does Dawkins have for suggesting that serial killers just need a psychic oil change and a quick spray of mental WD-40 ? Where is the evidence that this kind of behaviour modification is actually possible ? Nowhere, but Dawkins has faith that it could happen, and the Right are pigs for not indulging him in his fantasy.

Dawkins’ maintains that all religions are equally evil – except when Catholicism is the evilest of them all - but how scientific is that ? Surely we can devise some metric of the damage caused by each faith ? Dawkins dare not ask that question. What makes a religion most dangerous is exactly what makes communism and Nazism so dangerous: collectivism – the very thing Dawkins’ ideology calls for. Why else is Dawkins so enraged by religion ? It surely can’t be because he genuinely feels that filthy rich, Oxbridge media stars are oppressed by farmers in Welsh hill villages. Nope – Dawkins doesn’t object to religion because the religious impose their agenda on people like him, but because it hinders people like him imposing their agenda on the religious. Dawkins is a fundamentalist of State power.

Dawkins' opposition is not just to the particulars of any one faith, or even religion itself, no, his vision is of a world stripped not just of faith but of the whole idea of objective morality itself. As he freely admits, Dawkins' World would be governed by an icy utilitarianism, to be decided, no doubt, by the suitably enlightened. Say what you like about him, but Dawkins’ vision of a world governed by philosopher kings ruling without any check or limit to their power sure stands up to what any traditional religions can offer as a vision of Hell.

(H/T to Albert Minimus for the interview link)

Femiloons In Stupid Victimhood Claim Shocker

Who'd be in the drugs industry ? The government make you spend years and billions of pounds to get your drug to market, then they complain that it's too expensive. Then there's the charidee rabble, endlessly complaining that not enough attention is paid to Third World diseases, then demanding that companies should waive patents on any drug dealing with these diseases. But for full-on pharmohumbuggery, one source stands above all others. Really - if you want to see a doctor panic, wait until your GP prescribes something then ask him how it works. Without the pharmaceutical industry, 90% of medicine would be social work, so quite naturally the medics would rather miss a round of golf than a chance to criticise the industry. Even by their standards, this latest attack is a lu-lu:

Drug companies are being overly cautious in advising pregnant women to avoid using many of their most useful medicines, a leading doctor says.

Vermin! Fancy tricking people into not using their products. Is there no end to their evil ? It gets better:

Women are being denied use of drugs for everything from headaches and depression to infections.

Wow! This isn't just people being too cautious, people are actually denying women these drugs. I'll bet Chimpy McHitlerBurton is behind it.

Women are being ghettoised over treatment, if this was happening to an ethnic group there would be outrage and quite rightly.

Huh ? There are drugs which can't be given to certain ethnic groups. That's not proof that the industry is secretly run by the KKK, that's the realities of genetics. Leaving aside the trainwreck understanding of basic science, the rest of the statement doesn't stand up either. Women aren't being ghettoised - at worst, we're talking about those women with a particular self-limiting condition.

More to the point, as even the BBC concedes, this reluctance to expose pregnant women to drugs arises for perfectly understandable reasons. After Thalidomide it was exactly this kind of femiloon house eunuch who was yapping about eviiiiil companies foisting drugs on pregnant women. They claimed these companies were evil for producing those drugs, so now there aren't any drugs for pregnant women. All the companies have done is followed the logic of both the rhetoric and the policy pushed by the L3 ever since.

Maybe Atlas Shrugged should be a set text in medical school ?

New Toy

About six months after these folks first suggested it, I've finally managed to transfer the blogroll to these guys. Which means I've had to do six months worth of updating. All of which is by way of saying two things: firstly, though it seems OK to me, that's never been much of a guide - so leave a comment if it's disappeared from your screen. Secondly, all the links should now work - same caveat applies.

Our Natural Ruling Class At Play

We're just lucky this incident didn't involve two students from some prole uni like Edinburgh or York - then it would have just degenerated into squalid sadism. Of course this does land our betters in something of a pickle. If they let them stay then it rams home the point that standards are for the leetle peeple. Give them the heave-ho and it raises questions about a selection system that can choose two sadistic muppets like this in the first place - I'm pretty sure Laura Spence has no record of animal cruelty. Either way, it kind of undermines their claim to be a select body of Ubermann. I'm guessing they'll square the circle and claim that the initial concept was sound, but these two young geniuses were let down by the undermotivated proles running our postal system.

BBC Reporter Seeks New Occupation

John 'misguided criminals' Simpson is at it again. He's angry, really angry. In fact, he's so angry that it's hard to tell what exactly he's angry about. Here's a good rule of thumb: when a member in good standing of the L3 is angry but won't quite say why, that usually means he's up to no good. This case is no exception.

What Simpleton is so angry about turns out to be new laws which make it an offence to attend terrorist training camps. There are certain core principles which underlie the British concept of liberty, but the right to learn how to bring down a 747 isn't one of them. As it happens though, Simpleton isn't excised by the thought of people being cruelly deprived of the chance to study Hostage Taking 101, so much as teed off that the law will be applied equally both to proles and to journalists.

Apparently, Simpleton has heard of the concept of 'equal under law' but he thought it was only for the ordinaries. Needless to say, that's not quite how he puts it, nope - he claims that laws preventing attendance at terrorist training camps will prevent jounalists covering stories about terrorist training camps. Note to the BBC: don't assign Simpleton to any stories involving sex crimes.

Of course, we'd take Simpleton's criticism more seriously if he gave the slightest impression of having considered the need for balance between national defence and press freedom, but Simpleton goes to absurd lengths to deny that there is even a threat. First, we had the whole 'misguided criminals' thing, now we have another lu-lu:

Let's take a practical example. I have gone to, say, a council house in Bradford with three or four al-Qaeda volunteers who are letting me film a discussion: not necessarily about the making or use of a weapon, but perhaps about ways of setting up resistance cells that might at some future stage use violence.

Resistance cells. In Bradford. Obviously fighting the brutal Zionist occupation of West Yorkshire. In so far as Simpson's argument is predicated on the myth of the journalist as disinterested seeker after truth, his easy adoption of the rhectoric of Osama Bin Laden does kind of make the government's case. If nothing else, it certainly shreds any claims Simpson may make for the ability of jounalists to act as some kind of objective judges of the public interest.

What If He'd Only Molested The Scumbag ?

It goes against the grain to help the forces of darkness, but for the mental health of the nation, it has to be said: Liberals, if you’re trying to bamboozle the rest of us into thinking you’re taking seriously infiltration of our nation’s schools by predatory perverts, stop referring to it as a ‘witch hunt’.

Of course, the L3 have some cheese anyway, accusing anyone else of stirring up hysteria. Who exactly was it who decided to enliven a party conference by inviting a bulging eyed lunatic from the Snowdrop campaign to call for Jihad against gun owners ? Call it a crazy hunch, but I’m guessing a significantly lower proportion of gun owners go bananas than paedophiles turn out to be paedophiles. When there is a 1:1 match we’re no longer talking about a correlation, so much as a ‘description of suspect’.

As bizarre as it is to hear Liberals proclaim that we can’t really be sure that convicted paedophiles are paedophiles, we also have the sheer weirdness of Ruth Kelly’s supporters claiming she shouldn’t be fired because she had no idea what was going on in her own department. Yep, it’s the Reverse Nuremberg defense again – bad stuff was done, but only by people who weren’t following orders. Now, after (according to Liberals) officials in the DfES conspired to conceal from our elected representatives that they were allowing paedophiles to work in schools, the answer (again, according to Liberals) is to strip politicians of their nominal authority and transfer the whole process to the self-same officials who approved the perverts in the first place. That’ll fix it!

As with 90% of what Liberals believe, there’s a strong undercurrent of intellectual snobbery in their position. They like to argue that public opposition to allowing sexual predators to range freely through the education system is proof positive of the Great Unwashed’s lack of nuance, simplistic worldview and general lack of Frenchness. The funny thing is that there are some issues where Liberal nuance is conspicuous by its absence. Take the evils of felonophobia. Apparently, this isn’t a complex issue. Child molestation needs thinking about, but calling pondscum pondscum is an unmitigated evil. How’s that for a summation of what the L3 really stand for: ‘Protecting your kids nearly as well as we protect criminals' ?


UPDATE:

Needless to say, they're discussing this over at DC's place, where several of them raise a point I myself was wondering about, namely what happened to all those human rights laws the L3 foisted on us to prevent inappropriate bugging of Achmed Al-Semtex ? ,

Elvis Found Alive!

That’d be a surprise. What isn’t a surprise is finding out that the Met has ordered a review into how they handle investigations into ‘hate speech’. Widespread ridicule – and the too obvious to miss double standards on display - might have forced them to investigate Sir Icky Sickball, but they’ll not let it happen again. I feel for whichever subordinate gets scapegoated for all this: ‘Johnson you idiot! It’s only supposed to be hate speech if it involves Conservatives. Not one of our people!’

We're Just Lucky Perverts Don't Create "An Environment Of Intimidation"

I think ATW are bang on here when they point out the sheer humbuggery of the Left. For the record, the charge was not that the nonce-in-question merely supports paedophillia, it was that he paid money to access what he thought was a nonce site. Free speech means you have the right to criticise our gun laws, not the right to buy a pistol.

It's not just education either. The Left persecutes those with bad opinions in other sectors too. To the point: the L3 are not motivated by any warped sense of Christian charity or ideals of limited government. They’re certainly capable of throwing the first stone, it’s just that they don’t think being a pervert is that big a thing. So why do they get so foot-stampey when I say that ?

Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding

It’s generally true that the Left thinks the Right shouldn’t be allowed to state their case, while the Right thinks Leftists should be positively encouraged to explain what they really think. That’s why Liberals keep yapping about the danger from alleged extremists on the web, while right-wing maniacs such as myself find ourselves screaming at the car radio ‘Look, moron, you asked him about health policy, now you’re letting him get away with babbling about his disabled child. Get a grip!’

All of which is by way of saying that I feel more positive about a certain movie than ATW. Not that I don’t agree with them about the vile ideological intentions of the movie. When the L3 charge Bush with being a cowboy, they’re – for once – exactly right. The cowboy is an icon of what’s right with our civilization, and the L3 attacks on the cowboy myth are motivated by that very fact.

Still, with all that, I think it’s rather funny. Look at all those Liberal film reviewers. They bang on and on about how transgressive the film is, how daring, how it’s really stuck it to the BushChimpler...and so on, until finally they have to admit that, well, y’know, not a lot actually happens. The film doesn’t even qualify as parody – parody requires at least a basic knowledge of the source material. This film is the equivalent of throwing a tin of paint over a statue of John Wayne.

What ‘Brokeback Mountain’ really reveals is the fundamental hollowness of our opponents. For all that talk of Gay History Months, Gay Pride parades and the like, when it’s time to produce a gay movie, it’s about two shepherds who wander round, occasionally buggering each other. So that was what all the hate was about ? That was what the Pink Wedge launched their crusade for ? ‘Brokeback Mountan’ not only establishes just how much these people hate Western Civilisation, it also exposes their total inability to suggest any workable alternative.

What's Wrong With David Cameron

Yep, last week was another classic one for British justice. Actually, the BBC is downplaying the extent of the victim’s injuries – the bloke has been left missing parts of his brain and skull, so badly brain-damaged that he has no real ability to remember anything. What this is, is an example of sheer contempt for the public at large – not just the assailant, the judge as well.

There are plenty of issues which split the nation – this isn’t one of them. It doesn’t matter whether you ask Joe Bloke sitting in a Labour club in a former pit village, or you ask Sir Tristian Duckfield at the Trumpton Hunt Ball, they’ll tell you that this sentence is a disgrace. At risk of stating the obvious, judicial independence was supposed to mean independence from undue interference by the other two arms of government, not that the judiciary should exists as some kind of free-floating Liberal la-la land.

What’s happened to our justice system is a perfect microcosm of what the L3 would like to happen to Britain as a whole. The philosopher kings on the bench, conjuring up whatever spurious arguments are needed to justify pushing the L3 agenda are the very epitome of Liberalism. Liberals believe in the ability of the elite – who, amazingly, turn out to be folks just like them – to bring about a new golden age. The L3 will admit that things haven’t always worked out so far, but that’s only because they haven’t been given enough power. After all, a total transformation of society demands total power. This is why the L3 are so antagonistic to concepts such as objective legal principles, religion or democratic accountability: all limit the ability of the elite to impose their views on the world.

Equally, this is the antithesis of what Conservatism is about. But now we’ve got David Cameron giving the store away. Cameron doesn’t have any issues with the idea of an out of control elite, just as long as he’s part of it. Say what you like about Princess Tony, but he was a Liberal pushing Liberalism. Cameron is far worse: he’s actually conceding the debate to the Left. So now the 90% of the population that think that a guy who beats a man until he’s badly brain-damaged might be the sort of person we’d rather not have on the street find themselves effectively disenfranchised.

That’s what’s wrong with Cameron, and that’s why a Conservative victory could be worse than another defeat. Whatever tactical changes Cameron may make, he has swallowed whole the Liberal metacontext. Blair was always enough of a realist always to conceal his Liberalism behind blather about being ‘tough on crime’, but now by surrendering the whole debate to the L3, Cameron could, by default, manage the almost impossible and make Liberalism look credible.