Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Armed Art Critics As The Sign Of A Healthy Ideology

Artists, hey ? What are they like ? They produce the most juvenile pieces of contrived shock art imaginable, then babble about how daring they are. Ooh ooh…someone's painted a portrait of the Queen using his own semen….some other guys sculpted the crucifixion using his own faeces… Hang on a minute - when exactly was the last time one of these overgrown pubic lice was lynched by a rampaging mob of patriots and/or Christians ? 'It's dangerous! It's dangerous, man!' Nope - it's a group of elderly thirteen year olds whose sole flirtation with danger is with the risk of repetitive strain injury from too much mutual coddling.

Anyway, I've been wanting to post for a while about the return of Britain's Paleocons - the people who claim there ain't no war, it's just a tiny minority, Islam is a ROP…..blah, blah, blah. I was going to trawl the news for a week, then put together a post describing what exactly these people are defending, but fortunately people far more qualified than me have taken on the job of slapping the Paleos.

Here's the Steynmeister on the basic insanity of the Tories' lurch into Michael Moore territory. Bottom line: about the only thing the Tories had going for them was that they took national security seriously. Now, in time of war, they gone to La-La Land and with them have gone any remaining reasons to vote Conservative - after all, the type of people Howard's 'Bush Lied!' act appeals to aren't hardly going to vote Conservative anyway.

Steyn nicely stomps the tactical arguments used by the Paleocons, but there's more to it than that. Paleocons often argue that it's all one huge mistake, Islam is indeed just a religion and a peaceful one at that. In fact, though the point is rarely made explicitly, Paleocons frequently imply that opposition to the Ideology Religion of War Peace is really just opposition to those who are enslaved in the Dar Al-Islam.

Here's a group of people who believe God has ordained them to conquer the entire world and establish an order in which everyone else will be either slaves or dead, and it's the people that want to stop them who are the Nazis ? Logic and the Paleos aren't what you would call close friends.

But anyway, Paleos and poncey artists alike, shut the Hell up until you've read this and tell me that painting pictures of Lady T as Satan is daring and citing Islamophobia isn't just a weaseley way of trying to close down debate.

What a woman! Don't expect to be seeing her on the Beeb any time soon though. If she'd only feature Dubya eating babies, why, then she'd be radical. Kudos to the Telegraph for - again - defying the media's Dhimmi three-line whip, but even these folks can't quite get all the way off their knees:

Low-level fatwas - or death edicts - have been raining down since she attacked Islam as a medieval, misogynist cult incapable of self-criticism and blind to modern science.

Low-level death edicts - you know, just the minor sort of death threat then. Here's one for the Paleos amongst us, can any of you think of other circumstances where the media would play down a threat to kill a former asylum seeker turned politician ?

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Coming Soon....

Michelle Malkin points out the latest weirdness in the US of A. Expect it in Islington by next spring.

Naked Gnome

What was that fig leaf the L3 used when discussing Iraq ? Ah yes - they weren't opposed to the West defending itself against terrorists they just didn't think Iraq was part of that particular war. That was reassuring - if you were waiting for Robin Cook's OK before deciding if Al-Q were evil or something. Except now, with the L3 having lost the Iraq debate, it turns out that Little Robbie's true position is a little more nuanced after all…

Former Cabinet minister Robin Cook says he is "deeply troubled" by an increase in raids to prevent terrorism.
Mr Cook said "raids under the Anti-Terrorism Act...are now running, staggeringly, at 10 times the level of three years ago".
He said such raids risked "alienating" the very people Britain needed for a multi-cultural society.

Is that a classic slice of Liberalism or what ? The world is at war and Robbie wants us to know that he's 'troubled'. Narcissistic, much ? Massive casualties we can accept, but a piece of escaped garden furniture making sad faces ? Well, how can we go on ? And Robin's surprised to find activity has increased in the last three years - gosh, could something have happened back in 2001 that caused the pace to step up ? I'm sure I recall something, maybe a building somewhere or perhaps an airliner…..It's on the tip of my tongue.

But, that last bit's a classic. We need these people for a multi-cultural society ? Never mind that the statement begs the question of whether we do in fact need a multi-cultural society, let's consider the sheer amorality of that argument. We're talking about people who fly airliners into buildings, saw heads off and kill their own daughters for the sake of some warped sense of honour. But who are we to judge ? Britain needs to accept female circumcision as being just as valid as not slashing away at the genitals of young girls. Cook expanded further on this:

There's a real risk that if we continue with that we will end up alienating the very people we need for a successful multicultural society and a successful appeal to people around the world of a different culture.

Yowser, now it's not just Britain, we've got to appeal to the world as well. Hey - some of us remember when British governments tried to serve British interests not those of the world.That's what lies at the heart of the L3 opposition to the war. They're not arguing about means, they don't believe in the ends in the first place. They don't see anything unique about Western Civilisation, anything worth preserving. Nothing's worth anything and the only real evil is to believe in anything. Bush is a bigot and a fascist for unreasonably insisting that the USA is somehow better than Sudan while Robin Cook is deep and perceptive for putting on a grim expression and issuing sermonising about how troubled he is by people defending Britain.

Mind you, when time comes to serve an eviction notice on the Mad Mullahs in Iran, doubtless Robbie will be assuring that his real problem with it is that it's a distraction in the war on terror.

Compare & Contrast

Two snapshots of modern British law enforcement:

While the Police ignore actual, real crimes, they nevertheless have time to investigate fantasy ones. The law is a rat's nest of grey areas, but the requirement for sex to have taken place in order to sustain a rape charge isn't one of them. This is how seriously the rot has spread. There's a certain logic here though - the Police won't uphold the law where there are no political points to be scored, so I suppose it's natural that they should go all out where there are - ahem! - messages to be sent even in the absence of an actual crime being committed.

Meanwhile, consider the rantings about Ray Mallon, supposedly encouraging police officers to break the law in the light of the deafening silence following proof of police officers trying to frame an innocent citizen. Of course, Mr Mayor was talking about druggies, muggers and other innocent victims of society while the second case involves a driver and therefore an official enemy of the people. No L3 carrying water for those people!

Bandits At Six O'Clock

Here's a question: is there any British institution that hasn't been completely upscrewed by Nu Lab ? Nope, that one doesn't count - the RAF has just helped itself to a nice, cold glass of lavender Kool Aid. So, decades after the Lancaster was phased out, the RAF is recruiting tail gunners.

Needless to say, this whole thing completely contradicts Nu Lab's own public statements - shocking I know. The original policy was supposed to be 'Don't Fear It, Don't Flaunt It' (not to be confused with the other government flagship policies of 'No Young Person Left Behind', or setting up a 'National Bureau of Investigation'). It may just be me, but dancing on a float, naked except for cowboy boots and a Stetson, doesn't exactly seem like hiding your light under a bushel (or anything else for that matter).

Of course, any resemblance between the rhetoric and the reality was always purely coincidental when dealing with this issue. The whole Gay Rights thing was never about preventing rampaging mobs stringing up Sir Elton from the nearest lamppost, it was always about remaking society. Having the RAF prostate themselves in this way will have had champagne corks popping all over the Queer Nation.

But don't go blaming our friends on the floats. They've got nothing to hide - in every sense of the word. They're not hiding their true nature. They're GAYS, who want GAY jobs in GAY companies, with GAY tea breaks, drinking GAY tea in GAY cups with….well, you get the point. Don't try and recruit rabbis and then complain if they don't work Saturdays.

Nope, the people who really annoy me are the folks running round now weeping and whaling about the fall of the RAF. These folks were perfectly happy when the activists were busily Mau-Mauing their way into industry and commerce. That was OK, but this, this is different.

Yes, the Armed Services do a serious job, but what of Law Enforcement ? Or if you want to let the emergency services on the lifeboat, how about the NHS ? But, no, however you draw it up, industry gets thrown to the dogs every time. Never mind how health care would get along without the pharmaceutical industry, we're told we're in the middle of a revolution in warfare. Information technology is supposedly revolutionising the battlefield. So, what proportion of the technology was developed by the Armed Services themselves ? For that matter how exactly do they propose to pay for it without a thriving private sector to pay for it all ? The difference in consequences between allowing the Armed Forces to decay and bleeding industry dry is merely one of timescale.

It's Tommy Atkins in reverse. There are a significant number of people in this country who seriously think we should be outraged at the RAF's capitulation while considering the pillaging of industry by the self-same type of victim hustlers as the very height of civilisation. Well, screw that.

Don't worry about that large group of targets on the radar, it's just a flock of chickens coming home to roost.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

The Radcliffe Test

Talking of the media in Britain, they've never been exactly modest, but the latest witch hunt comes hot from the ancient African Kingdom of Ugorrabkiddin. People who were this way and that over whether Myra Hindley was really evil are piling onto La Paula for the heinous crime of not completing a marathon - this from folks whose only form of exercise is running up their expenses (in the sense of "waiter - another round of 'laundry' with extra ice").

I hoping this at least will wake a few folks up. After all, the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus can be forgiven for being fooled when the media bather about space exploration or urban combat, but surely no one on the Sceptic Isle will really buy that Paula Radcliffe - world record holder Paula Radcliffe - is a bum and a loser. The public has enough imagination to understand that running 26+ miles - in any weather, let alone the "someone's left the oven on" weather of Athens - is a hellish undertaking. Paula may have collapsed on the pavement but it's the media's credibility that's looking really sick.

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Scott Burgess, Fact Nazi

Scott B's in trouble again. He's been fact-checking the Guardian - there's a life's work - and they're ever so upset with him. I heartily endorse the responses from Scott and John, but check out the e-mail itself, from Guardianista Paul Brown:

Dear Scott Burgess, Reporting the man from Microsoft seems to you to be somehow remiss, yet he is the man from America talking about his fellow Americans. You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says and then add comments, a luxury news reporters are not allowed for good reason, because it leads to distortion of what people say. All the best Paul Brown"

I mean, what's with that first line ? How does one 'report the man' ? Equally, if he is 'the man from America' how can there be fellow Americans ? Wouldn't that make him 'a man from America' ?

Mind, you, I'll bet Paul B still thinks Dubya's occasional verbal uptrips make him a total maroon. Yes, yes: this is pretty weaseley, and yes, I know I'm the last person to sneer at someone getting their Englishing all confuserised, but hey ? I'm just a fat drunk with a keyboard. Paul B, on the well-known other hand, seeks to cast himself as the valiant defender of journalistic standards despite making the average blogger look like Churchill.

But, let's not let the terrible writing distract us from the repulsive nature of the underlying idea. Is a Guardian journalist really resorting to that old standby of racist through the ages, namely digging up a single example of a member of the targeted race saying something that reinforces his prejudices then arguing that 'they say it themselves' ? Surely not!

Brace yourselves - that first sentence was as good as it got. Next, we have this:

You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says and then add comments, a luxury news reporters are not allowed for good reason, because it leads to distortion of what people say.

Was there an offer on commas when he wrote that e-mail or what ? Mind you, with those scare quotes there'll always be a job waiting for "Paul" at the so-called BBC. Of course, we must not let the "English As A Sixth Language" writing style distract us from the asininity of the basic point: journalists don't comment on what they report ? Say what ? We could get specific, but for now let's just - for the sake of Paul's absurd argument - ask how, if all journalists do is report verbatim other people's comments, their jobs differs from that of sub-editors, carefully clipping the story to fit.

In reality, of course, journalists always comment on what they report. Providing fact and commentary are delineated as such, there is no reason at all why any distortion should occur. What, I think, Paul really means - and again you are reminded that one of us is a professional writer and one a drunk - that journalists should report what people say without adding their own comments. Yet, isn't one of the main roles of a journalist to add context ? Is Paul really saying that if Michael Howard claimed a Conservative government would cure cancer, he'd report it with nary a whisper ?

Given that the stated charges are so weak, I think it's fair to speculate on what really teed off Paul. Check out the start of his second sentence: 'You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says…' Is this a Freudian slip or what ? A member of the public commenting on the press. I mean, he probably doesn't even have the hat, let alone passed Nuance 101. It's a disgrace.

Just five years ago, Paul Brown could have got away with it, but now things have changed. No longer can the mainstream media deliver the talking points d'jour to the public like pearls before swine. No wonder they're all sulky, how can they enjoy the privileges of being a member of the Fourth Estate when rude oiks keep interrupting their pontifications ?

Once A Sleazeball..

At least we know Nu Lab weren't corrupted by power. Here's evidence that at least one of them was a scumbag years before they ordered their first "background check" on a rail safety campaigner.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

More, Please

I've never been one to hold back on my criticism of Howard et al, and in fact I was going to write about the latest outbreak of weaseling (they'll only commit to 'review' the Human Rights Act - that'll show them lawyers). So I was naturaly quite delighted to see this eminently sensible piece from David Davies. He strikes the balance perfectly, saying what every non-Kool Aid drinker on the planet would agree with, without giving the weasels anything to bite on.

Delusions Of Granduar

My theory that the Golden Age of satire has been brought to an end by the fact that the Left is now inescapably weirder than any parody has just been reinforced by this:

A campaign to sanctify the European Union through the beatification of its founding father, Robert Schuman, has run into stiff resistance from the Vatican and now appears likely to fail.

And why exactly would helping to create the EUSSR be counted as doing the work of the Lord ? I mean, don't we need evidence of a miracle or something ? Actually, they claim to have that bit covered:

Schuman supporters lobbied hard for a favourable interpretation of the rules, arguing that Franco-German reconciliation in the bitter aftermath of the Second World War was itself miraculous. So far, the Pope has responded coolly.

At least the Church still has some integrity. His Holiness probably remembers the last great Franco-German reconcilation, the one between 1940 and 1944. Still, fifty-nine years of peace between France and German is practically evidence of divine inspiration. After all, they only managed forty-four years between 1870 and 1914, while there was a measly fifty-five years between 1815 and 1870.

Obviously, the fact that a bunch of post-modernist, culturally Marxist Euronut tools are prepared to cite divine authority to try and push their garbage merely confirms that there is no depths to which they won't sink, but it goes a little deeper than that. Forget the EU, it is far more plausible that the recent lack of organised violence on the Continent reflects the victory of democracy over alleged elites. This is how opposed the Eurocrats are to the D-word, they'll even pretend to be avid followers of Jesus rather than give up their deluded dreams of a new, socialist aristocracy.

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

What Is 'Chutzpah' In Braille ?

Is it National Irony Week or what ? David Blunkett, DNA database guy, ID card obsessive, CCTV freak, and much else is whining about the Press investigating his innovative approach to supporting the family on the grounds that they're intruding on his privacy. Hey, Dave, if you've got nothing to hide….

The Secret Reporter

Hey - a public body deliberately recruits known criminals, who - shockingly - then carry out serious crimes while on the payroll. The public has a right to know what's going on. Time for one of the Beeb's famous investigations. Oops.

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Bias Masterclass

Don't get me wrong, I think the folks at Biased BBC do a great job, but I can't help thinking if there isn't more to it than that. Biased BBC is intended as an answer to Andrew Marr's challenge (as featured on their home page) that critics of the BBC should provide specific examples. They do well as far as that mission goes but there's a problem with that approach (apart from the sheer arrogance of Marr's statement that, effectively, it was up to the public to convince a public service to do it's job properly). While the Beeb is certainly capable of outright lying, and proves it daily, the majority of the bias is far more subtle.

Inevitably, attempts to address this more diffuse form of bias leaves the critic open to charges of tinfoil fixation, yet the Beeb is ready to consider this form of bias in other contexts. After all, the Beeb has been a flag waver for such nebulous concepts as institutional racism. Surely the BBC would not claim a charge of institutional racism could only be sustained against organisation that have published outright racist commentary in the 'Blacks are vampires' mode ? Yet, the BBC continues to dismiss charges of bias even while continually casting Conservatives as (amongst many other things) a deviant, strange 'other'.

They have similar problems in the US with some of their media institutions, which explains why any Briton reading this brilliant dissection of how the Washington Post spins an article against Bush will experience both a dull ache of recognition and an eye-opening insight into how the bias thing is done.

Bogus reports about supposed massive Coalition defeats and the like are certainly bias, but let's not neglect the more pervasive, less explicit sort that contaminates almost everything the Beeb does.

Ann Vs The Zombies

As Jonah Goldberg points out, there's always a degree of 'Gorillas in the Mist' when a member of the mainstream media meets with actual, y'know, Conservatives, but today produced a classic of the genre. A journodroid at The Indie (aka the Guardian's Guardian) interviews Ann Coulter. It's about what you'd expect but with some classic Coulter - here's Ann on the whole John Stuart Mill, Liberal scam:

This is a nomenclature issue. You might as well call yourself gay when you mean you're happy. That is what 'gay' used to mean and that is what 'liberal' used to mean, but that isn't what it means any more, and you're just playing word games to pretend that it does.

Actually, the most amusement comes from seeing an L3 interviewer who prepared to counter Ann with a series of tightly-argued, factually based arguments…. No, just kidding.

How do you begin to argue with someone who operates so far outside the generally accepted confines of political debate?

Is it just me or are the L3 becoming the perfect caricature of that which they started off opposing, whining like maiden aunts about opponents who rudely insist on bringing up difficult issues ? Then again, the Indie isn't best equipped to lay down the law to anyone about reasonable standards of debate.

Of course, there is one grain of truth in the whiner-in-question say. Ann's genius is that her piercing logic and endless courage means she is an effortless debunker of the kind of L3 posturing that is so engrained in our society that even harcore RWDB like myself no longer even see it. Here's Ann on the sleazy sleight-of-hand which demands that any mention of September 11 must segue into dhimmi self-flaggellation over alleged 'Islamophobia'.

They slaughtered 3,000 people and I'm making unfair generalisations. I think we're even.

Exactly, and how about the way the Left wants to be recognised as patriots for signing up to a war against Al-Q (and only Al-Q) ?

We've been under attack by savage, fanatical Muslims for 20 years. It wasn't al-Qa'ida that took our hostages in Iran, it wasn't al-Qa'ida that bombed the West Berlin discotheque, which led to Ronald Reagan bombing Libya.

Indeed. Obsessing about Al-Quaida makes about as much sense as claiming Britain fought the Second World War against the Waffen SS.

Needless to say, against this much logic, the L3 freak has a near-breakdown. In amongst all the invective, there's this priceless line:

I see someone who is not afraid to twist, distort, bully and lie in order to "win" her argument.

'Mummy! Mummy! The Conservatives are answering back…. This never happened at Oxford!'

So, about that Rose Addis anyway ? The Left needs no tips from us on the politics of personal destruction. Check out what's happening right now with the Swifties. Hey - this is the paper that employs Robert Fisk and carries water for Little Jenny Jewhater. If Ann was as bad as all that, they'd be offering her a job.

Sunday, August 15, 2004

Police In Quick Reaction Shock!

That Howard speech, hey ? What a devil-may-care guy. He's claiming all our problems arise from a lack of respect. Given that he came out with this vacuous guff in the centre of a near-war zone yet still got out without being lynched suggests all too much respect in modern Britain. Doubtless, Howard charged up the base with that speech, but to my own fat self it just confirmed that the Tories biggest problem isn't their name, their colour scheme or bad hair - it's the fact they're completely irrelevant.

Now, for sure there are plenty of other things wrong with the Conservatives, but it is their essential uselessness that makes these other issues loom large. Check out how sleaze was a lethal issue for Major but a non-starter with Lady T (or for that matter, how Blair's travails with Mandy haven't damaged him). At best, Howard's speech merely confirmed that he understands the problem, even while he has no worthwhile ideas on how to fix it.

It is ironic that this event itself provides a text-book example of where we are today. Following on from the day's festivities….. well, read it yourself:

A police chief constable has expressed concern that comments made by the Mayor of Middlesbrough could be seen as an invitation for police to break the law.
In a speech on Tuesday, Ray Mallon encouraged police officers and community wardens to kick down doors and root out the criminals.
But Cleveland Police Chief Constable Sean Price said the force would "not support any transgression of the law".

It need hardly be said that this is a perfect example of one of the Liberals most asinine debating tricks, namely the 'code words' scam, whereby a Conservative raises a point 90% of the population would agree with (ie the Police should enforce the Law) and the L3 claim he actually meant something completely ludicrous (ie the Police should ignore the Law). To claim to take seriously Price's hysterical comment is to claim to see no middle ground between anarchy and Auschwitz.

But look at the wider context: the Conservative leader gives a speech and the local Chief Constable tries to shiv him by proxy. Like, hello ? There are many different interpretations of what the role of the Police should be, but none of them mention spinning for the government. Except, for an increasing number of alleged public servants politics is what their job is all about. It is eminently possible that the Police reacted faster to Mallon's speech than they did to this. The only conclusion must be that if you hear someone breaking into your house at 3 AM you should lean out the window with a megaphone talking about your support for school vouchers and they'll be there in a flash.

I've written before about the influence of Gramsci on modern Liberalism, suffice to say for now that an incoming Conservative Government will face a bureaucracy in the hands of left-wing activists. This is what Howard is not addressing.

Take what happened when Nu Lab introduced the mandatory jail sentence for a second burglary conviction, with a get out clause for 'exceptional circumstances'.In the first year of operation the provision was not used once or, to put it another way, every case was judged to be exceptional. Think that one though. The whole of our nation's judiciary stood up and mooned at Parliament and, by extension, to the whole electorate.

Apparently, Parliament lost the Civil War in the L3 universe. Take this drivel from the Uber L3 Law Commission. They want to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder, and what justification do they offer for this step ?

The Law Commission said it had found wide support among criminal justice professionals for an end to the mandatory life sentence for murder.

Well, that settles it then. These people can't even conceive of the Law not being their personal property. Hey - they're certain it needs to change so change it already.

The bottom line is that Howard can blather on all he wants about cracking down, but without a determination to clean house that's all it is. Whatever transient headlines Howard can capture, the public at large instinctively knows that the Conservatives just aren't serious about driving through change, and that being so, why should anyone vote for them ?

Thursday, August 05, 2004

New School Voucher Promotion Group Found

Teachers often ask why they aren't more respected. Here's the answer - they're a bunch of moonbats.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Nostalgia And The War

Gosh! Some of the data used to predict possible Al-Q attacks was from four years ago. That must mean there's no threat whatsoever then. Hey - it's not like they would fixate on a single target for several years. Oops. The fact that future members of the Bush administration were talking about taking out Saddam prior to the 2000 election is held up as proof that it's all a huge conspiracy, but the fact Al-Q scout targets years in advance means there's no threat. L3 logic at its finest.

Mr Common Sense says that if the terrorists were monitoring a target in 2000 and they're still working on it now, then they're really serious about hitting it. But no, sanity is not in the building anymore. Check out these comments at Two Minute Hate/Don't Have Your Say:

So much hot air has been expelled concerning alleged terrorist threats on a daily basis both pre-war and post-war that credibility is now stretched to its limit. The main exponents, Blair and Bush are no longer believed by the majority of people having been exposed by public inquiries on both sides of the pond. Remember the student thesis that was advanced as a case for bombing Iraq? Now we have four year old intelligence. Whatever next? The Chinese restaurant theory again?
Kev Rafferty, Worksop, UK

10-1 Kevver can't explain exactly how Bush and Blair were 'exposed' - hey, all that fashionable posturing doesn't leave time for actual reading.

Let's get real: we know for sure that the political campaign teams include numerous political strategists. It's a sure bet that these guys would not ignore a key election issue such as the 'war on terror'. Of course, the timing of news release is critical. the danger of a terrorist attack is real but, in my opinion, is blown out of proportion and used for the exclusive benefit of G W Bush. Also, I guess that Al-Qaeda would like to see Bush re-elected. that would fuel the hatred against arrogant America in the Arab world. a peaceful and friendly America would not be that much fun for them.
Mihai, Ottawa, Canada

Ain't it grand ? The self-same people who screech about some of the data being four years old nevertheless blame it all on the BushHitler. Meanwhile, Earth people will be aware that Bush didn't take office until Jan 2001.

No, in a word. I am not worried. This is exactly as Michael Moore predicted in his award winning documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. The US will continue to raise and lower the terror alert more so in the run up to elections. This is the present Government's way of controlling the masses. We should not change our routine in the slightest.
Janet Furly, London, England

'Controlling the masses' - that's how our socialist buds think of thee and me: a big old mass of downtrodden serfs waiting for the Tinfoil Knights to come save us. They're not called Mooreons for nothing.

Still, all this high-energy lunacy does raise one important question: why would terror alerts help Bush ? After all, the self-same L3 have been claiming that Blair has 'made us a target'. How come it doesn't work that way with Bush ?

That's the thing: the Clinton Years were America's holiday from history. Eight years of turning the answerphone on, disconnecting the doorbell and wallowing in garbage. Reality bit on September 11 and the Left failed utterly to rise to the occasion. The world is at war and the L3's main contribution has been to whine and complain. The Democrats instinctively understand that no one in their right mind would trust them to defend America, hence their only hope is to cast September 11 as some kind of aberration, international terrorism as a mere breakdown in communication and Al-Q as a sort of Islamic Rotary Club. That's why the terror alerts drive them nuts, because it throws into sharp relief that they remain mired in the a world that ceased to exist three years ago.

Real Crushing Of Dissent

PC points out another turn of the ratchet. Doubtless Liberty, the Al-Guardian and the lovely Cherie are all gearing up to fight for free speech - shortly after the Winter Olympics are held in Hell.

The genius of it all isn't that these people have managed to weasel themselves into a position where they can score huge quantities of public money, media attention, classroom time and much else to proselytise their philosophy while their opponents face arrest. It's that they have managed to achieve all this supposedly in the name of 'equality'.

Monday, August 02, 2004

Gulag Getaways

The Edukayshun Cartel is getting nervous: too many kids are escaping under the wire. More to the point, once free of Beardy the Weirdy and his stoner pals, they're doing just ducky. What to do ? Stick Big Government on these upstarts. After all, think what the kids are missing out on.

Not Our Mates

I trust everyone has heard the story of the philosopher and the socialite ? Basically, they meet at a party and the philosopher says 'If I give you £1 million, will you sleep with me ?', the socialite says 'OK', at which point the bearded one says 'How about £10 ?' and the socialite says '£10, you think I'm some kind of prostitute ?' then the philosopher says 'We've already established that, we're just arguing about price'.

That's pretty much how I feel about Libertarians. They flounce round denouncing everyone else as dirty sluts just waiting to crawl into bed with Big Government, but when it all comes down the line they're perfectly prepared to go all the way with the right issue.

Of course, this isn't always a bad thing. Sean Gabb, who in most other respects is an uber-libertarian, is nevertheless prepared to talk openly about the benefits of monarchy. This pragmatic readiness to embrace an institution that works rather than hare off in pursuit of some utopian ideal is the type of thing that almost deludes some Conservatives into thinking of Libertarians as ideological allies. Nevertheless, the Libertarians ability to climb into bed with the State cuts both ways. Take this example from Samizdata. Yowser, he wants the power of the State to be deployed to remake marriage into a Lefty ideal. Hey - I'm against ID cards, but I think making everyone wear a card round their neck counts lower down the scale than having the State try to redefine 'family'. But no - smashing traditional morality turns out to be the million pound note for these guys.

Excessive consistancy in ideology is a sign of madness, but for a group of people who use the word 'statist' as often, and for the same reasons, as Liberals use 'racist', there's a degree of humbuggery in their readiness to use the power of the sword when it's their ox being gored. May I suggest a new working definition for Libertarians: people who oppose the role of the State in things they don't care about anyway.

Médecin Avec Frontières

Sir George is blogging up a storm in the Imperial Palace. Check out this US perspective on our hospital hours troubles, then try this brilliant piece on the aforementioned MSF's disgraceful attempt to spin their being forced out of Afghanistan by Jihadis into a condemnation of the very people who are fighting them.

Now Can We Stop Pretending You Don't Hate Britain ?

Revealing comment over on one of the posts at Cuthbertson Mansion:

I'm wary about making generalisations about Japanese people but I agree there's little evidence to suggest their troops were any more aggressive, cruel, or vindictive, as the propaganda would have us believe.

In terms of sheer callous ruthlessness, I think the RAF Cammand/Churchill combination takes a huge amount of beating. If we had lost WWII after dropping anthrax and gas over Germany I don't think the world would be muttering about Japan now...

What did I say about the Left being unable to argue without moral equivalence ?

I'm sure you don't need to be told that this is utter BS. Britain never used either anthrax or gas. Experiments were certainly carried out with anthrax, but it was never approached deployment, while Churchill considered using gas twice - once against German invaders, once in response to V2. In other words, only when there were serious, direct threats to the homeland. In neither case was gas actually used. Needless to say, while some of the rules of war are open to interpretation, there's none which makes thinking about something illegal.

With the Japanese things were a little different. Their biological experiments used Chinese prisoners. In fact, the unit concerned, Unit 731 has its own memorial in modern Tokyo - something unthinkable in a British context. What's more they really did try to spread plague through Chinese cities (albeit completely ineffectually). Those Western prisoners that were not immediately executed were used as slaves, kept malnourished and without medical care. The treatment of Asians was far worse - consider the Rape of Nanking, the use of 'comfort women' and the like.

Short summary: the attempted equivalence between Britain and Japan is asinine. PC's blog is haunted by a shedload of L3 who can be trusted to turn the Seetheometer up to 11 every time Peter comments disparagingly about terrorists, murderers and the like, yet the post has been up days now and not one of the L3 has thought to speak out against it. Calling paedophile killers scumbags, that's beyond the pale, but libelling Britain ? Who cares ?

It seems to be a common problem on the left. Check out this topic on Two-Minute Hate aka Don't Have Your Say. It's supposedly the anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising , yet check out the blurb and it quickly mutates to whether Briatin should apologise. Say what ? True, it's Poland's PM who came out with that gem, but really…. The Nazis invaded Poland, the Soviets delibratly halted their advance until the Nazis crushed the rebellion, the Yanks (penertrated by Soviet agents at the highest level) refused to intervene and it's all Churchill's fault ? Churchill was just about the only guy who tried to help. The realities of logistics and geography meant Britain could do little. But try telling some of these people that:

As a an Englishman at that time I felt totally ashamed at how we made promises and then abandoned them so quickly. I realize it was virtually impossible to realistically intervene but then don't falsely encourage. To compound matters never since then has any British leader had the courage or decency to apologise or offer reparations. Tony Blair should do both immediately, and apologise for the delay too.
Jim Nicholls, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

Yep -even though you couldn't actually do anything, it's still your fault.

Those who did not die in the rising had Stalin's camps awaiting them. All while the UK was agreeing new post war borders for Poland without consulting Poland's government. The UK betrayed Poland whatever the military realities on the ground.
James Scobbie, Scotland

'Whatever the military realities'…. I think the word is 'self-fisking'

Of course, when a Western leader did stand up to the Soviets the Left at least stood right behind him. Remember how the Left cheered when The Gipper called the USSR an evil empire ? Or how about Academia having so many Ronald Reagan chairs in International Relations ?

Naaah. Churchill's a rat for not opposing the Soviets, Reagan's a nut for opposing them. Instinct tells me that the specific issue is kind of a surrogate here. Whatever happens, Britain in particular and the West in general is always bad.