Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Ah yes - British Liberalism's endemic Political Tourette's Syndrome striking at the wrong time. Expect oddles of humbuggery about freedom of speech from the very people who bought in these witch trials in the first place. Of course he'll get off, but it does show that one way to expose who Liberals really are is merely to take their loony views to their (il)logical conclusion.
Here's a free clue Colonel: people who roger each other on a big float rolling through the city centre probably don't consider their sexuality a private matter. Au contrair -it's the central part of their identity - they do gay jobs for gay companies doing gay things and get paid in gay money, with Sir Elton on the back of the notes. Well, possibly. Still, weird though they are, they're at least honest, which is more than can be said about the Army's approach.
We are delighted to be taking part in Gay Pride this year.
"As far as
the Army is concerned, sexual orientation is a private matter and we are
attending to promote the benefits a career in the Army can bring.
The Army wants to recruit people who are noisily, high intensity, full spectrum gay, but it doesn't want to face the consequences of that. Can you imagine if they acted the same way over recruiting Chaplains ? 'Ok, Padre, welcome to the show, now you will remember that you can't make any references to God, take part in any prayers or read the Bible...oh yeah, can you take that crucifix off as well'. C'mon!
Of course, you can't have the yin of a true Nu Lab diversity freak-out without the yang of a Jihad against the people who actually make up the bulk of the existing force. Conforming exactly to this pattern, in parallel to the Army's attempts to recruit the First Battalion of the Fighting Fabulous, the top brass are busily slagging off the very people who really do have a track record of victory. When exactly was this Golden Age when the Army was dominated by sensitive intellectuals ? Not any time I can think of.
Ours (our army) is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the
Mind you, the bloke who said that probably didn't have any of the skills that a modern general needs. After all, when he wanted to play politics, he got himself elected. How absurd is that ?
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Nowhere is this tendency more apparent than when the subject is Islam. Large parts of our alleged Liberal elite seem determined to believe, in the teeth of all the evidence, that Islam is a form of social democratic thought, except for some mystical baggage. Needless to say, the exploding ones try their hardest to encourage the confusion by adopting the language of freedom, even while agitating against it. Add in an MSM that seems to see its mssion as preventing any useful information leaking out, and it's no wonder why so many people buy the ROP dummy. That's why the Net is so important - it means people can get the message out about what they really mean. Read this excellent post over at MCB Watch, and wonder why even a supposedly hard hitting Panorama program shies away from telling the whole truth.
Unfortunately, the Beeb apparently considers that simply labelling something an opinion piece is enough to absolve them of all possible crimes against reality, or at least you could be forgiven for thinking so on reading this.
We get some dreary recollections about Britian in the Fifties - the sort of thing that if it was mentioned by a Conservative would have Liberals rolling their eyes and making sarky comments about 'the Golden Age'. Harold wants us to know that we could been a contender, but we didn't take the whole science thing seriously enough. Well, OK, that's an opinion offered as such so it's tempting to let it slide - except that this is the central thesis of Harold's argument. He wants to convince us that the US is sliding down the same U-bend that Britain did.
First witness for the prosecution is certified genius Vinton Cerf. He's criticised the US administration about cuts in science funding, all of which strikes Harold as the greatest act of courage since the storming of Pointe Du Hoc:
The Bush administration does not take kindly to anyone who has drawn a federal dollar being critical - and being critical moreover in the businessman's' bible, the Wall street Journal.
So it is brave of Cerf to risk future disfavour and inveigh against "the stewards of our national destiny" for cutting money from key areas of research in its 2006 budget. That's a recipe, says Cerf, for "irrelevance and decline."
Similarly, we're are instructed that even though Professor Neal Lane was a former Clinton adviser, the fact he also served as head of America's National Science Foundation at the end of the Clinton years proves he's non-partisan. Say what ? The fact someone is a senior academic scientist proves he can't be Left-wing ? There are few places more uniformly Liberal than the average campus.
In fact, such question-begging descriptions appear throughout the article. We're told about the 'well-documented readiness of the Bush administration to manipulate and suppress scientific findings', which apparently is so well documented that Harold can't actually document any examples.
When he's not instructing us what to think, Harold is providing carefully-trimmed descriptions of other critics. We're told that Russell Train served under Nixon and Ford, and now claims that 'we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data ...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations.' But Train is no disinterested scientist. He is a hardcore ecoactivist who campaigned for Kerry last year. His claims are just a new variation on an old Lefty line: the reason people laugh at them instead of vote for them is becuase they're suffering from false conciousness, instead of being all enlightened like what Liberals are. Needless to say, it hardly seems like it's their opponents who want to pick and choose their science based on whether it's useful to their cause or not.
Likewise, we're told that the Union of Concerned Scientists is both 'nationally well-regarded' and 'non-partisan'. Really ? Here's a free clue, a body that advises it's members to 'advocate, not educate' isn't really concerned with science.
Consider the totality of the evidence. We have a guy complaining that, in time of war and with a large deficit, the Federal Government isn't spending enough on science. Maybe, maybe not, but the point at hand is that this alone is hardly evidence of some deep psychological flaw in the BushChimpler's psyche. No, the only evidence for Harold's absurd thesis comes from a Clinton hack, an ecoloon and a group of Lefty activist-scientists - none of whom are accuratly described in the article.
Any bets on when the BBC will consider the subject of journalistic integrity ?
Saturday, August 27, 2005
I think not!
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Take events oop North. The race hustlers have now established a new principle: not only are there naughty, naughty words, but you can also be done for adopting an offensive tone of voice. So I guess that means no more referring to David Lammy as a 'well-respected politician and noted intellectual' then ? No word yet on whether looking at minorities in a funny way is to be made an offence, but I'm sure that even now Liberals are bringing forward legislation to cover offensive miming.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Consider one of the most common charges laid against Sir Ian's breed of alleged Supercops, namely that they are masters of paper chasing, with nary a clue about real policing. Now let's examine the Police's own narrative for how St Jean the Martyr got zapped. Apparently, the surveillance officer was taking a leak, thereby missing him leave the premises, and from that point on the operation spiraled into chaos. A-huh. Is this not the perfect example of what's wrong with the Blair approach ? Setting up an operation which works fine, except if a single officer becomes indisposed for a matter of minutes, in which case it irretrievably falls apart. Sounds like we could do with some of those 'old ways' after all.
Similarly, Blair's actions post-shooting have also been entirely characteristsic of the Nu Police. Take the claim that Blair didn't know that the Police had shot St Jean rather than Abdul Bombalot until 24 hours later. What else was he doing ? Either he's lying or he has the worst sense of priorities in recorded history. Ditto, the constantly changing stories. It's almost as if evasiveness is so written into the DNA of modern police management that they have to slither around even where it's totally counter-productive. One thing's for sure: a police officer who can't be trusted is like a accountant with his hand in the till.
Blair had two trump cards when St Jean the Martyr was shot. He had the fact that most of his critics had previously gone on record as stating that there was no threat, and he had the residual respect most of the public had in the Police's ability to deal with terrorists, yet Blair has managed to fritter both of these away. Blair's slipperyness has proven that with the right mismanagement, you can have smoke without fire, while he lacks to the moral courage to make the kind of break with the Left that exposing the 'no threat' brigade would represent. What he should have said goes something like this:
For nearly four years we have been aware that there are people out there determined to carry out terrorist atrocities on a massive scale, yet our every attempt to increase readiness has been opposed by people anxious to claim that there is no threat. On July 7 we found out how dangerous that non-existant threat could be. They told us that it was a one-off. On July 21 we found out differently.
On the morning of July 22 all could see that we faced exactly the type of sustained series of attacks on this nation that our critics had always claimed was a myth, yet thanks to laws they had championed vigourously, terrorists had been allowed not only to enter the country, but allowed to move freely about it. We, the professionals in the security services, were told that all we could do was monitor them - anything else would breech their rights. My officers were to be spread across this city, hiding behind bushes, or in cars, or dressed as postmen, allowed to observe fanatics but not to act. They were told that they could follow known terrorists, yet they could not act against them until they had actual evidence of terrorist acts, or to put it another way, they were to follow terrorists until they had reached their targets, and only then were my officers permitted to act.
It was against this background that one of my officers reported that a man
matching the description of a terrorist had left a building known to be used by terrorists. It was under those rules of engagement that my officers tried to covertly track him across town, trying to decide whether this was just another routine trip or this was the day he would embrace martydom. When the target made for a packed tube train, we decided the risk was too much to bear. My officers moved in to arrest a man they suspected was laden with explosives, ready to detonate at the touch of a button. Above all else, they knew he must not be permitted to detonate his bomb load. That is why my officer fired - to prevent what he believed believed would be the slaughter of a train load of commuters.
Now we know - after the fact - that the target was innocent. Were errors made ? Yes, thousands of them, just like in every other war. We face a challenge unique in our history, and there will be plenty of blunders along the way, most trivial, some serious, a few even fatal. That's why we need to be open both between ourselves and with the public about what we're doing. We want the public to understand that every minute of the day we are working on new ways to make Britain safer.
I can't help but think that if Blair had made a speech like that in the first 48 hours, he would have cut the ground from under our moonbat friends, but he couldn't, not just politically, but because his worldview would not allow it.The idea of treating the public as adults, capable of distinguishing between the bad choice and the worse one, is alien to Blair's brand of Nu Brit elite. Then again, the idea of taking a stand on anything is alien to these people. Truly, they have drunk deeply of the well of PoMo. To these people, vagueness is the highest quality. They are the masters of the glad-handing, 'I feel your pain' approach, their buzzwords are sensitivity, empathy and non-judgemenatlism. The best stance is no stance at all. Hysterical denunciations of non-drinkers of the PC Kool Aid is allowed, but when it comes to taking a stand on any complex or controversial issues go, these people are AWOL. A worse mindset for waging war can hardly be imagined.
That's the real charge against Sir Ian Blair. Above all else, he's a July 6 kind of copper.
Just don't accuse the Left of supporting terror!
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Personally, I always like to hear academics talk about the importance of diversity. There's a certain poignancy to hearing members of a sector that may as well head job adverts with 'Only Liberals Need Apply' lecturing other people about diversity. As far as these geeks actual argument goes.....it's gone. I'm baffled if I can find what they're yapping about. We get lots of boo words like 'segregation', but if your nightmares aren't already filled with thoughts of low social cohesion, there's little here that will terrify you - and that's leaving aside the thought that an area dominated by people with shared values would surely tend to be more, not less, cohesive. Ditto, the tension between their weaseley complaints about segregation and their calls for diversity. Surely the demands for complete uniformity between communties is the very antithesis of diversity ?
Ah - that's the thing. What these people want is emphatically not either cohesion or diversity. Diverse communities would let people compare life in East Valley with that in Hillside - people might get the idea that life being better in Hillside somehow suggests that there's something healthier about the local culture than in East Valley, and such overt judgementalism would never do. What they really want is a nation of atomised individuals - people dependent on the whims of government and whatever insane social engineering project is in vogue on the day in question.
These people are trapped in the Neverland of socialism. For proof of that, look no further than the sole attempt at an actual explanation why more information is a bad thing:
Social scientists have long theorised that having a mix of rich and poor in a neighbourhood ultimately raises the living standards of the poorest people in the area.
We may consider the insane collectivist notions behind these peoples' theory. Should rich people be forced to live in hellholes in order to help the poor 'ultimatly' raise their living standards ? If not, why say it? But then, what theory of wealth are these people using, anyway ? Is wealth a communicable disease ? Hardly - this really is voodoo economics. In fact, we do know pretty well what causes wealth: everything the Left hates. Stay off drugs, stay in school, work at a regular job, marry and stay married. Nothing is certain, but overall folks who follow these prescriptions consistantly do better than those who don't.
No wonder the Left is so anxious try and blur the debate with thoughts of economic osmosis. When you look at what causes poverty vs what causes wealth, it's pretty obvious that they've been on the wrong side of the debate for the last forty years.
Hell, that's being too nice to the L3. If the Conservative Party was as close to the BNP as the terrorists are to the RSPCA and the like, we'd never hear the end of it. Left-leaning soi dissant animal rights groups have been playing footsie with scum for years, but we're supposed to believe that a Conservative only has to mention the word 'immigration' for a thousand skinheads to go on the rampage. Just how many RSPCA members have been expelled for supporting the terrorists ? Given that they won't even call these people what they are, terrorists, I'm guessing at none.
Here is one of the major differences between Left and Right. Conservatives believe the law is the law, Liberals think every act of Parliament comes with the words 'it depends...' written on the bottom. When Conservatives opposed the prosecution of Tony Martin, it was because we thought the law stank, not becuase we thought Norfolk farmers deserved special privledges. The Left meanwhile will go to absurd lengths to deal with those crimes that affect the right groups, but when the victims don't fit, suddenly there's nobody home.
When one bloke hits another bloke, that's a crime, but when one bloke states weeks in advance that he's going to hit another bloke, and still gets away with it, that's the first step to mob rule. The public is clearly, if reluctantly, behind animal experimentation (hey, maybe that's why the animal rights wackos are so teed off - they even poll behind Dr Frankenstein). The terrorists aren't trying to win anyone over, they're trying to impose their views through violence. A clearer sign of contempt for the rule of law can hardly be imagined, and the legal establishment has done all but offer to make up a few petrol bombs for the thugs.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Let's take a moment for the full humbuggery of the charge to sink in. The MSM is sneering at the fact that bloggers allowed themselves to be caught out because they believed reports from the MSM. Well, OK. I guess even the BBC admits it's full of it these days. The closest we get to self-awareness is an anodyne admission near the end that the unreliable witness evidence was 'relied on by the media including the BBC.'
Of course, this is partially a continuation of the line that was being pushed last week, namely that bloggers should spend their time producing posts relating the Menezes shooting to burial practices in ancient Rome, or whatever. Auntie tells us that 'There's a temptation to comment on an event straight away, but it sometimes takes a while for all the facts to emerge', so I guess that wraps it up for News 24 then ?
No - it's just bloggers that need to wait for the facts to emerge. Funnily enough though, even where bloggers do have specific knowledge of the subject under discussion, that isn't enough to protect them from Beeboid sneering. We're told that 'Despite a flurry of posts in June, the police blogs are - perhaps understandably - quiet for the moment'. Well, yes: police officers refusing to comment on an ongoing investigation, who'd have thunk it ? This kind of patheitc innuendo wouldn't make the grade in a student paper.
No, the line the Beeb is pushing is as obvious as an elephant in a biscuit tin. Pro-Police bloggers are easily manipulated fools, while the cop haters are thoughtful intellectuals. Really ? Unfortunatly, that dog won't hunt. Liberal face card blogger Tim Worstall let's the cat out of the bag in this post when he admits he just plain doesn't like armed police. Saying the cop haters have been vindicated is like saying the BNP would be vindicated if Sol Campbell gives away the penalty that puts us out the next World Cup.
Incidentally, any organisation which carries a comment calling a police officer an assassin has officially lost the right ever again to use the phrase 'right-wing extremist'.
Needless to say, with all the room taken up by thoughtful Lefties reluctantly coming to the conclusion that cops are scum, there's no space to cover the many investigations into the background of members of the Menezes campaign, for example the Rotty Pup's investigation of 'concerned citizen' Asad Rehman.
Here we have citizen journalists going behind the headlines to shed new light on who exactly is behind the Menezes Machine. There's no instant reactions here, no mindless abuse, just lots of good honest research. But no - this work raises questions about how exactly the Beeb goes about its business and that would never do. Bloggers reacting to false MSM reports ? Bad. BBC presenting activist loonies as concerned citizens ? Same ol', same ol'. There you have the BBC's worldview: accountability is for the leetle peeple.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
- It's in the Koran, but no Muslim believes it in practice.
- Some Muslims may believe it, but it's not in the Koran, so it's not true Islam
- You're a Nazi
As a result, critical studies of Islam tend towards the large side as the authors attempt to deal with opponents who will throw every pot & pan, irrespective of logic. All of which means it is a particular pleasure to welcome Robert Spencer's new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).
It's tempting to call this the Dhummies Guide To Islam. As with the best of the Dummies Guides, an awful lot of information is packed into a very readable format. In fact, just like the Dummies series, text boxes are scattered throughout the main body with additional snippets of information. Spencer, however, has no time for the touchy-feely PC drivel that infects the Dummies series. Equipped with both a tremendous knowledge of Islam and the courage to descibe it accuratley, Spencer lets nary a PC myth nor a piece of Islamic propaganda escape unscathed.
In the first part of the book Spencer dissects Islam itself. Topics such as dhimmitude, the treatment of women and the role (or rather the abscence of role) of science in Islam are discussed. Spencer pulls no punches here - in fact, several chapters have sections subheaded 'PC Myths', where the author takes multiculti drivel head on. While the general principles may be familiar to students of the death cult, Spencer manages to explain both the hows and whys and to place each topic in the context of modern life.
The middle of the book deals with the Crusades. Initially, I wondered about this: why bother when only the already dhimmi buy into the idea that the Crusades somehow gave rise to Islamic excess anyway ? Spencer shows that the alleged evils of the Crusades play much the same role for Islamic apologists that the Crucifixtion played for anti-Semites in medieval Europe - the 'original sin' which hangs over all attempts by Europe to defend itself against Islam. Spencer debunks virtually everything pop culture would have us believe about the Crusades, while showing how they fit exactly in the narrative of Islamic Jihad.
Finally, Spencer deals with the Jihad today, discussing supposed 'Islamophobia', the murder of Theo Van Gough and other issues the multiculti would you rather you didn't think about. Indeed, even for the reader familiar with events post-September 11, much that Spencer describes is new and shocking. Certainly, if his report of events following a series of explosions at a Texas oil refinery is true, the FBI needs reforming with a chainsaw.
The book concludes with a short chapter detailing Spencer's prescriptions for taking militant Islam on today. These are all good, but I can't help feel he's done one of the most important things simply by producing this book. At last, there is a readable guide to Islam that eschews the insane dictates of multi-culturalism. Read this book and find out all you need to know to debunk the various dhimmi drivellings out there today, then give it to your kids, your significant other, siblings and anyone else who's suffering Kool Aid poisoning. Truly, Islam is the very definition of the phrase 'to say it clearly is to refute it'.
Spencer includes, on the front of the book, a line from an Islamic well-wisher: 'May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again'. After this, they're going to be really hacked off.
Down in the comments the Rotty Pup reminds us that the book is 17 on the NYT bestseller list. It's also 17 at Amazon.com, and even - without any publicity at all - 213 at Amazon.co.uk. You can hear Lefty heads popping from here.
I am now more than sure than ever of what I said a while back. The case of St Jean the Martyr is not an naturaly occuring scandal, it's a Frankensteinian affair stitched together in the Liberal media's PC laboratory. This is one of those entertaining moments in politics when the Liberal elite gets all excited about an alleged scandal only to run their bandwagon into the great brick wall of the Great British Public's reserves of common sense.
The proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus - maybe especially the man on the Clapham omnibus - knows what is at stake here. The Left might believe they can convince Joe Public that they're at risk of execution every time they step on the Number 27 - but there's no risk from terrorism! - but no one's buying. Indeed, this case is the perfect barometer of the Liberal Elite's estrangement from the public at large. The Libs are out there now, telling each other 'I've turned the Outrageomatic up to 11, and still nothing's happening'.
The public know what is at stake, and is prepared to accept that war is a rough business. That's not to say that Joe Public is prepared to accept - or indeed should accept - real incidents of incompetence or corrruption, but he sure won't fall for the drivel put about by the Left. There can no better argument for current policy than that it is so universally opposed by those who would rather Britain lost the war.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Of course, logic was never the Left's forte. That's why they like this case so much - it allows them to play to their strength: giddy self-rightousness. Liberals are clear where the blame lies: Conservatives support shooting terrorists, the Police claimed to have shot a terrorist, therefore the blame lies with the Right, much as the Left's support for the NHS makes them responsible for Harold Shipman.
Hey - at least Dr Death was a Lib Dem, but how exactly did Sir Ian Blair get to be a member of the VRWC ? Yes, that Ian Blair, the guy who turns a blind eye to some offences, while wanting to tear up the Constitution for the right victim group - or even just plain ignoring the law in the first place. But now we're supposed to believe he's gone off St Ann since she started to go all commercial.
Consider too, the second-in-command at Scotland Yard. Yep - Commander De Nial himself, aka Captain Anarchy (here's hoping the investigators thought to take a urine sample). And the responsible commander for the operation ? Ah yes - the all-too-easily-mocked Cressida Dick, yes - her.
It's not just Britain's Worst Force either. The Gold Standard for Police Shooting Related Screw-Ups was set under the indisputably PC Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse. Yes - this guy. Come to think of it, even without guns they unfailingly manage to steer onto the rocks. It was seemingly inevitable that the guy who wants us to Tie A Green Ribbon Round The Old Jihadi, would preside over the collapse of his own force.
Clearly, then, the problems of the Police Service are all down to the Right.
But seriously - how come Liberals are so universally awful at policing ? One answer is obvious - these people have achieved their rank via politics rather than, say, busting lowlife. How, exactly, did Commander Cressida's previous job as head of the Met's diversity directorate equip her for the front line against terror (also, it's unfortunate that her transfer prevented her finishing her enquiry into whether Moonbats were over-represented in management). Still, that's not the only thing.
G K Chesterton once suggested the hypothetical case of a gate erected across a road. His point was that while there may be many reformers who do not see the point of having some stupid gate blocking the road, these are the people who absolutely should not be listened to when it comes to deciding whether to remove the gate or not. As he puts it:
The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists
who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put
there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.
Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good
thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was,
we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.
This is the third point. Many of our senior police officers aren't actually law enforcers, so much as culture warriors. They can see how catching criminals gives them a certain credibility, but it's not something worth obsessing over. Their real vocation is helping bring about Nu Britannia.
That's the final point. The modern police manager, just the Liberals so many of them are, has drunk heavily at the well of PoMo. This insane philosophy has caused dmage everywhere it has taken root, but the belief that there are no absolutes only competing viewpoints is particularly disasterous when combined with law enforcement (hey, maybe that's the answer - the Met didn't lie, it offered an alternative view).
The Law is the sphere of absolutes, there is order and there is chaos, as night is to day. Liberals believe law should be like a Tony Blair speech, an essentially transitory set of positions, adopted purely for polictical benefit. Hence, we have both the proliferation of new laws and the failure to enforce the ones we already have. Soon everything will be illegal, but they won't really mean it.
The concept of law as the codification of the common morality has gone the way of the dodo. What all this means is the Police have become in both senses of the word demoralised. Instead of being a noble calling, the Police have become the provisional wing of the Guardian. Professionalism cannot survive in such an environment.
Liberals have the answer though. They've come out with a bold new policy: they're against the Police shooting the wrong people. With that kind of ground-breaking genius, it's hard to see how the Left managed to screw-up the Police so badly in the first place.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
I believe the phrase that applies is 'sauce for the goose'.
The most senior judge in England and Wales, Lord Woolf, wants more focus put on finding crime-fighting alternatives to sending offenders to prison.
Lord Woolf, shortly to retire as lord chief justice, writes in The Guardian "there is no alternative" to prison for serious and violent crimes.
But for many others prison may not be the best way "to turn people away from a life of crime" and cut reoffending.
That's what's gone wrong. We have an activist judicary that utilises the doctrine of 'checks and balances' to continually frustrate the will of Parliament, yet starts yammering aabout 'judical independence' every time the other two arms of government try to draw them back into this dimension. Consider the humbuggery of judges continually warning us of the dangers of overmighty and unaccountable politicians. Note too the sleight of hand: judical independence means independance from government, not the wider society.
Then again, it appears that m'lud doesn't have a lot of time for the public either:
In his article, responding to a Guardian series on the criminal justice system, he says a major challenge is to convince the public "that non-custodial sentences do provide a satisfactory punishment to offenders and that they can play a key role in diverting offenders from returning to the pathways of crime".
Again, the humbuggery is almost overwhelming. By virtue of his public office, Lord Woolf claims to be able to rule on questions involving everything from combat in Iraq to medical malpractice. Yet when it comes to matters in his area of expertise, he claims that his purely technical skills give him alone the right to pronounce on questions of morality and the like. I am unconvinced that a knowledge of the law confers particular insight on the morality of crime and punishment.
As even Woolf concedes, Parliament - for once - has the full support of the public. He is not a democrat, standing up against an unaccountable government. On the contrary, the only recognisable principle Woolf can be said to stand for is the right of an unelected elite to declare themselves above Parliament and remake laws as they see fit. I believe we settled this argument in 1649.
Here you have the considered view of the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims. Wanting to establish an Islamic superstate and impose Sharia over everywhere that can vaguely be described as Islamic land is not extreme. Terrorism is bad, unless it is used to resist oppression. Israel is an apartheid state and Zionists are forcing the Government to defend it. Hizb ut-Tahrir should stay legal. Closing mosques which support terror would be collective punishment of a community which claims to abhor people who support terror, and may lead to the community which abhors terror blowing stuff up. Also, terrorist shouldn't be sent back to the Muslim lands these people were just going all misty-eyed about becuase they're hell holes.
Or to put it another way, these people support the right of Muslims to commit acts of terror and support Islamic expansionism on the flimiest of pretexts, they have a pathological hatred of Jews, oppose any measures to deal with the terrorist supporters they claim to despise and claim to defend the right to free speech, except where it criticises Islam.
This is all good to know, but why do they get so upset when we point this out ?
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Coherency was never the Left's thing.
We've had a Labour government since 1997 - I think by now we've got some pretty good data on how the Left deals with paedophiles. Take the question of parole-on-demand: here we have a situtaion where even the most dangerous of predators can be released early. There's no broad brush here. We're talking about an actual, specific policy which places British children in danger. This is a policy pushed through by a Left-leaning legal establishment, with a Left-wing government that, at the least, failed to oppose it. Doubtless, there will be Leftists who will insist that they personally are opposed to parole-on-demand for paedophiles, just as others will insist that they oppose the collapse in sentances for perverts or they support notification laws, but - judging just by their actions - the mainstream of the Left goes the other way. Call me unreasonable if you want, but I think we should be allowed to judge an ideology by the laws it passes when it gets its hands on the levers of power.
That's where the supposed analogy with racist Conservatives breaks down. There may indeed be Conservatives who are secretly lusting for a racially-pure Britain, but when found out they're, at the least, ostracized by the main body of Conservatives. But look how the Left reacts when a prominent Liberal is caught making pro-paedo comments, such as Johan Hari's bizzarre idea that the Left should reach out to paedophiles. Or rather look how it doesn't.
Similarly, whatever dark thoughts some Conservatives may have, they have no discernable effect on policy. There is no suggestion from the Right that, say, those guilty of racial attacks should be let off lightly - and certainly no equivalent support to the ever-shrinking sentances for paedophilia under the influence of the Left. Again, this is simply an objective fact: Leftists support lower sentances for paedophiles. Who exactly do these guys think they're kidding ? 'I totally oppose X, that's why I support slashin sentances for it'. C'mon!
But there's something deeper going on here. Where is the Conservative 'Brass Eye', featuring Rightists yukking it up over people worrying about racist attacks ? Ditto, Conservatives can talk about the savage murder of Anthony Walker without feeling the need to inject the story of a Cop fired for asking for a 'black coffee', yet any discussion on paedophilia will provoke at least one Lefty to cite the case of the persecuted paeditrician. Folks, here's a free clue - if you've been citing the same case for four years, there probably isn't really a tidal wave of hysteria sweeping the country.
Liberals might just - when backed in a corner - be able to muster a condemnation of paedophiles, but they soon lapse into claiming that the real problem is 'mob violence'. That's a clue to their real motivation. Liberalism's motivating force is elitism, its reflex response to any situation a superior sneer. Of course their natural sympathies are with perverts. Liberals pride themselves on their contempt for the morality of the unenlightened leetle peeple. They're still entranced by nihlistic Sixties drivel about smashing the system, man. Any pervert, any terrorist, any thug is welcome, just as long as they can be conscripted into the Left's war on Western Civilisation. That these people will even flirt with those who prey on small children is the true barometer of the moral vacuum that exists at the core of modern Leftism.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
At this point I'll simply repeat what I said at the time: if Linda Walker can choose two people, completely at random, who just happen to be serial offenders, she shouldn't be being persecuted by the Police, she should be running them.
Thing is though, this is purely a parochial phenomenom. While the L3 recoil from judgementalism over the vexed question of packs of degenrate predators in the Midlands, when it comes to strangers in a strange land, the Left starts acting like a district commissionar in Victorian times. Look at the Left's rhectoric when it comes to deporting terrorists. Suddenly, the Left can't criticise the wogs enough. Apparently, Liberals are shocked that there are lands out there which don't follow European ideas about human rights for criminals. Some may say that this is because they are different countries, but the Left's not having it. Of course, the Left is perfectly happy to have foreigners making their own laws – just not ones the Left disagrees with.
It's not as if we're necessarily talking about outrageous behaviour here. The Left sees torture everywhere. Christine Aguilera ? Torture! Mishandled Koran ? Torture! Milk too warm on the cornflakes ? Torture ? Probably! Liberals draw up an insanely wide defintiion of 'inhumane treatment' then use it to prove we can't export scum anywhere. Then they claim we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because, hey, Saddam wasn't all that bad.
Consider the essential humbuggery of it all. We have, say, an Egyptian citizen who's wanted by the Egyptian government for the murder of Egyptian citizens in Egypt, but we can't deport him to Cairo because we don't think Egyptians should have the right to treat terrorists in ways we disagree with. On the other hand, Liberals believe our foreign policy should be dictated by a body where Egypt has the same number of votes as Britain. So which country is it where the pyramids sit ? Egypt, the brutal hellhole, or Egypt, the member in good standing of the UN ?
The only common thread between all the Left's positions is that they invariably choose the one that does most damage to British interests. Moral positions are picked up and discarded as and when required, but the theme remins the same. If the Left wishes to label the Right as being nasty to bombers, they should certainly be encouraged. I have the strangest feeling that the Great British Public won't judge us too harshley for being rough with terrorists.
That's the thing though. Liberals don't think predators should be in jail in the first place, but even they have the sense to know not to admit it in public. They conjuror up insane plans to track paedophiles in the hope that no one will ask what they're doing on the street in the first place. It's deja vu all over again. They did exacty the same with the rehabilitation industry, gleefully accepting each and every report of success, abscent even the most basic considerations of independent review and the like. Until the Left succeeds in its mission to legalise child abuse, we'll be bombarded with ace new ideas for dealing with nonces that all happen to be the complete opposite of what any rational person would suggest.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Mayor of Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman told a group of fourth graders on Monday that if he was marooned on a desert island the one thing he would want to have with him is a bottle of gin.Fantastic! Just look at history. Look who makes things happen. Think of all the great leaders, artists and thinkers who've been pinch-mouthed teetotalers. Think of any of them who've been lemonade weenies. It may just be that the story of human civilisation is the story of booze.
And when a student quizzed Goodman about his hobbies he replied that “drinking” was one of them, said Mackey Elementary School Principal Kamala Washington, who was present for the mayor’s visit.
Goodman was unapologetic for his comments that came during his visit to the elementary school in North Las Vegas.
“I’m the George Washington of mayors. I can’t tell a lie. If they didn’t want the answer the kid shouldn’t have asked the question,” Goodman said. “It’s me, what can I do?”
When critized for telling the truth, Goodman later testily told a City Hall press conference that he was “proud” he told the truth.
“I will not lie when I give an answer. I’m not going to say I’m going to bring a teddy bear to the island, or I’m going to bring the Bible to the island,” the mayor said. “I’m not going to lie to anyone because that’s not Oscar Goodman. But sometimes you can’t tell the truth because of the people with whom you are speaking.”
Asked if he thought he had a drinking problem, Goodman said: “Absolutely not. No. I love to drink.”
So why are we so defensive ?
The drunk of today is the inheritor of a glorious tradition stretching back to the dawn of time. It's the weasel-faced creeps and weirdos who stay sober that should be hanging their heads in shame. If human civilisation is the story of the quest for hooch, what does that make them ? Not just parasites, but ungrateful whiny little rats, enjoying the benefits of modern life while disparaging the many noble soaks throughout the ages whose drinking has made it all possible.
I'd say more, but have you seen the time ?
- The 'Aliens' Story: Barely-trained US child soldiers being systematically slaughtered by deadly, unseen jihadi ninjas
- The 'Platoon' Story: Heavily armed uSS troops descending on innocent villages and slaughtering the defenceless inhabitants
I see a certain contradiction here. I mean, surely every now and again, while US Forces are raining down fire on wedding parties, kitten hospitals or bus loads of pregnant women, a round must drop short and kill a jihadi, but no: ask about Allied casaulties and the media can talk all day, but dead baddies ? Naaah, can't help you mate, but we do have a special offer on 'grieving parents'...
This is what the media panjandrums mean when they talk about their vital role in providing nuance and context - unlike those horrid bloggers! - endless reports of Allied soldiers either being killed or bombing baby elephants for no reason whatsoever. Porno movies have more backstory than the average report from Iraq.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Next up, we have Depleted Uranium explaining how Bayesian Inference can shed light on how the Police deal with suspected suicide bombers. Finally, we have some discussion about the literary and political significance of an obscure 19th Century bombing incident.
Now, this is all good stuff, but do you note that it all clusters towards a certain end of the spectrum ? How can one put this ? This isn't exactly what they talk about down the Dog'n'Duck.
As ever, it turns out the BBC have an agenda. Here's how the article ends:
The newspapers have got rhetoric and leader columns covered. What it would be great to see from blogs is the start of a set of building blocks - analogies, psychological mechanisms, and actual experiences - to help us build up an understanding of the mad world around us.
It's a task more noble than "taking on the media", and it's one that
only the blogs can do.
More to the point, the Left already supports actual, specific restrictions on the discussion of religion. Take the increasingly surreal pursuit of BNP Scumenfuhrer Nick Griffin. Try the attempts to bring in laws that will prohibit even talking about Islamic terrorism. Indeed, to follow the logic of Liberal's stated position, they want it to be legal for a Muslim to claim Islam supports suicide bombing, but illegal for an Infidel to do so.
As it happens, in a coincidence too neat for Hollywood, we have a chance to witness the Liberal worldview in action. While the Left is ostentatiously agonising over whether to prosecute naughty preachers, they have no qualms about targeting a real bad guy. Step forward Alan Buchan, now officially worse than Hizb ut Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the rest.
Alan Buchan, owner and editor of North East Weekly, a free paper distributed from Peterhead to Aberdeen, of course. Hey - that may sound like an obscure billet, but it's big enough to make him a target of the Race Commissars. Al's crime was to
write an article opposing plans to open an immigrant centre and a prison in his community. True, he has a certain way with words, but colourful language alone hardly constitutes incitement.
Forget Hollywood, the average jornalist's role models aren't Woodward and Bernstein so much as the Lion and the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. In keeping with his low rung on the journalistic ladder, however, Buchan still appears to have retained some integrity:
We are surprised by the police action in this matter as it is of extreme
importance to local people to open up a debate on the effects of the complex
before it is built," said Mr Buchan."The North East Weekly has been calling for
a local referendum on the issue, similar to that held on toll charges in
Edinburgh, so local people can express an opinion on what is being planned."The
police action is a move against press freedom and free speech. We intend to
mount a stout defence of the freedom of speech as this is the only way to defeat
the extremists bringing blood and carnage to the streets of our towns and
Of course, Buchan is quite correct to point out the essential lunacy of the charge. What race are asylum seekers ? Are Mexican asylum seekers and Indian asylum seekers the same race ? And is our putative Indian aylum seeker the same race as a doctor from Bangalore ? The Left won't say, but if they want a conviction they might have to.
That's what's significant about current events. Even ten years ago, the mere charge of racism - no matter how deranged or illogical - was enough to cow people into submission. Now, folks are starting to call the Left's bluff.
We're back to what I keep saying: what the Left fears most of all is people finding out what they really believe. Now that people have stopped folding like a row of tents every time the R-word is mentioned, the Left is forced to articulate its objections, and the public gets a chance to see who they really are. Hear that Nick Griffin has been charged with incitement to racial hatred and it's a dog-bites-man story. Hear that one of the things that got the Left all batey is his comment that 'Britain would sooner or later be struck by Islamic bombers, who would "probably turn out to be second generation Pakistanis from somewhere like Bradford" and that they would probably "blast the hell out of London tube trains and buses." ', and you've got an insight into the mentality of the modern Left. Never mind that Nazi Nick was 100% right, he still shouldn't have been allowed to say it. This is post-modernism gone wild.
For the record, I'm betting that the PF won't proceed with the charges against Buchan. That's good for him, but bad for us. It's always great to see Liberals forced to expand on their philosophy in full view of the public. In particular, it would be good to see the Left forced to discuss just who these 'asylum seekers' actually are. But, irrespective of what happenss in this particular case, the Left has lost its Mojo. They can't shut people up with cries of racism anymore, now they'll have to engage with the arguments. No wonder they're so panicky.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Trouble is that as soon as you dig down into the actual results, it all goes horribly wrong for the BBC. Take, for example the finding that '32% think it "threatens the British way of life" and 54% think "parts of the country don't feel like Britain any more because of immigration" '. Right there the Beeb's bandwagon runs into the sand. At least since the Sixties the MSM have been propagandising for multiculturalism, while opponents have risked both legal and career consequences, yet still nearly a third of public are prepared to tell them to shove it. More significantly though, consider the 54% who claim Britain is less British because of immigration. That means 22% of the public aren't prepared to openly admit to opposing multiculturalism - at least not to some inquisitive stranger in the street - yet will admit to qualms about the whole process.
The pattern is repeated in response to other questions:
But the survey suggests a more "confused" attitude to the concept of
multiculturalism, Mr Page added. Some 62% of the national population believe
"multiculturalism makes Britain a better place to live", according to the poll.
At the same time, 58% thought "people who come to live in Britain should
adopt the values of and traditions of British culture".
This is an important point about the modern Left: they just can't tell the public what they really believe. They prefer to try and demonise opponents of multiculturalism as Nazis, KKKers or racists, rather than admit that actually they think carving your daughter's genitals out with a razor is every bit as civilised as not doing so. The public may have been variously bamboozled or intimidated into claiming they agree with multiculturalism, but when the rubber meets the road, they overwhelmingly reject the actual practice of multiculturalism (and also female genital mutilation).
Of course, no BBC article is complete without the compulsory Islamocoddling, and here it is: 'The overwhelming majority of Muslims - 89% - said they feel proud when British teams do well in international competitions, a similar figure to the national population. ' Gosh - it makes me feel all warm inside. Except....do well against who ? Sure, they might support England v Germany in the footy, but how's about a Test series against Pakistan ? That's the question of the hour, and - needless to say - the BBC ducks it. Still, we get a subtle hint down below, when we're told that 'Among Muslims, 87% thought multiculturalism improved British society, but only 28% thought people coming from abroad should adopt British culture and values. '. A-huh. But the real lu-lu is coming up:
Ben Page, director of Mori's social research institute, said: "The survey shows
that despite 7/7, the majority of both white British people and Muslims share a
common level of allegiance to Britain and its institutions and seem very
tolerant of each other, in contrast to media reporting following the London
That's what's so infuriating about the MSM in general, and the BBC in particular. They yap and yammer about 'accountability' and 'transparency' for everyone else, yet when data is revealed that flatly contradicts their editorial line, they not only publish it with nary a nod to their own previous reports, they do so in a way that seems to suggest we should applaud them for bravely debunking a myth they themselves were instrumental in trying to foist on the public. Can you imagine their reaction if any other company behaved in this way ?
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Actually, I can't say I'm too impressed. As with much else involving Blair there is all too much of a suggestion of a man trying to have his cake and eat it. Note, for example, that there will be changes to the Human Rights Act to make it more difficult for the Courts to screw up deportations. Well, yeah, but the Courts have long proven that as much as they can do to screw up defence, they’ll do it. As long as the Courts have any role in these matters, they’ll lie in the road trying to obstruct efforts to defend these islands. We don’t need to make changes to the HRA, we need to kill it with a shovel, or at least restrict these rights to citizens and legal residents. In a similar vein, consider the increased use of control orders on terrorists who can’t be deported. Any policy that shrinks away from serving walking papers on known bombers can hardly be called ‘tough’.
It’s one thing for Blair to talk about all these new policies which his government is just about to bring in, but there's something his government could be doing right now. Consider this: what proportion of Mad Mullahs and the like are signing on ? Since when did planning global Jihad get to be counted as being available for work ? How come no one’s asking the loons at Finsbury Park to attend a Restart interview ? Au contrair, the opposite policy appears to be in effect.
So that’s my litmus test: I’ll belive Blair is getting tough when a Jihadi gets his dole claim looked at as sceptically as if he was a forty-something ex-soldier, a former Rover worker or...well, just about anyone else in the country.
The government should not let the public mood dictate legislation in the wake of the 7 July London bombings, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has warned.Given any rational assessment of the relative records of Lib Dem MPs Vs the Man On The Clapham Omnibus, it takes a remarkable degree of chutzpah for Mr Blackout to suggest the public are not qualified to be trusted with the defence of the realm.
The thing is that the Treason Party aren’t quite clear about what it actually is they doesn’t like. There’s plenty of talk about ID cards creating a ‘health underclass’, but not so much mention of how exactly. It’s not like there will be literacy tests or a property requirement. Nope – everyone gets one, so what’s the deal ?
You have to wade through approximately 8 tonne of manure to find out that what the Lib Dems are really worried about is this:
[Lib Dem health spokesman Steve Webb] highlighted the government has recent admission that there are perhaps 500,000 people in the UK illegally…..Yes, indeed. The Libs are worried that ID cards will prevent people who aren’t entitled to NHS treatment obtaining NHS treatment. For most of us, that comes firmly under ‘A Feature Not A Bug’, but not these folks. To be sure, there’s a paper thin attempt to cast Joe Public being bled dry as somehow in his best interest, but it’s kind of weak:
"The worry is that if the ID card turns into an entitlement card then increasingly they will not be able to access most NHS services," he said.
That could mean diseases such as TB went unchecked, he warned, or people would resort to a "black market in back street quackery" for healthcare.Or they could, y’know, pay for their own healthcare. But no - we’ve got people sneaking into this country and potentially spreading communicable diseases. Clearly the answer is to make barmaids in Blackburn pay for their healthcare. I don’t know though – it seems a little indirect. My plan is to use a little-known ancient procedure our ancestors called ‘deportation’.
Still, this does shine a light on the true nature of the Lib Dems. These people like to posture as guardians of civil liberties, yet time and again it turns out that their objections are based on the ends not the means. Steve Webb isn’t suggesting that ID cards should be opposed because they won’t work, or the price is too high, he’s objecting because he thinks they will work. He thinks we should be taxing security guards in Scunthorpe to pay for the treatment of health tourists. Personally, I think he should be the one being treated, but whatever – just don’t claim he’s making some kind of principled stand for civil liberties.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Many commentators believe the US attack helped bring an early end to World War II in the Pacific.
Anyway, what’s with this ‘many commentators’ thinking the bomb shortened the war ? The bombs were dropped, Japan surrendered. If Liberals could ever demonstrate this kind of cause and effect with global warming, Conservatives would be going to work by Raleigh. Even if you think Japan was bound to collapse anyway, it is ludicrous to suggest that Japan would have gone from defiance to unconditional surrender in nine days, absent the bomb. Who does the Beeb think we were at war with ? France ?
Friday, August 05, 2005
America’s Holocaust: Operation Downfall, President Truman and The Invasion of Japan
Julian Tart, Weasel House Books
Well, at least you can’t accuse the good Prof of burying the lede. On the contrary, a bracing directness runs throughout this book. A great deal of research underpins this work, but this is no mere arid regurgitation of the familiar details of mass slaughter. Professor Tart’s book is an openly partisan work in which he acts as Chief Prosecutor, charging President Truman, the US government and, indeed, America in general with the deliberate infliction of mass slaughter on the Japanese people.
The Professor’s charge is simple: that the US knew full well that with the invention of the atomic bomb, there was no need to invade Japan. Rather than the inevitable bloodbath, the US could have ended the war simply by demonstrating the effects of these weapons on a Japanese city or two.
This is hardly an original argument, but what gives makes this book stand out is both the energy and the depth of research which Professor Tart deploys to rebut the two most common reasons put forward to explain US reluctance to use ‘the bomb’. Data from early bomb trials, the author suggests, show that even had it been necessary to launch an atomic attack on a second Japanese city, these two attacks would still have caused less casualties than the incendiary raids on Tokyo. Indeed, as the author clearly shows, rarely did a Japanese city fall with a lower death toll than even the worst-case scenarios of atomic attack. Hence, arguments based on supposed 'moral qualms' about the use of these weapons simply don't stand up.
Prof Tart is similarly dismissive of the other argument commonly deployed: namely that the US could hardly be expected to predict that Japan would fight on even while beaten by all conventional measures. On the contrary, by mid-1945 the US was already all too familiar with the fanatical resistance of the Japanese soldier. Equally, mass suicide of entire families had already been observed when Saipan fell. The US could have no illusions about the likely result of invasion.
But why would the US government deliberately engineer a mass slaughter ? Tart certainly sees merit in the most commonly proposed reason, namely that America’s lust for vengeance post-Pearl Harbour was such that an orderly surrender following the clinical execution of a handful of cities would hardly satiate it, but he also argues that deeper, and far darker forces were at work. With the Cold War looming, the US anticipated that an early demonstration of atomic bombs would not only tip their hand to the Russians but also act as a focal point for pacifists who would seek to obstruct further development of these weapons.
All of the above have been proposed before, albeit rarely so well argued, but what has made the Professor’s work so controversial has been his final suggested reason for the US reluctance to use atomic weapons: pure economic self-interest. While an atomic attack would have destroyed the targeted city, a surrender in August 1945 (the earliest the atomic bomb could be used) would have left Japan with its institutions intact, a functioning civil society and an orderly transfer of power to the US. Nevertheless, surely a degree of Japanophillia is required to suggest, as Tart does, that Japan would then be able to reinvent itself as an economic superpower and competitor to the US ?
Nevertheless, leaving aside the author’s somewhat over-enthusiastic visions of people watching Japanese TVs or driving Japanese cars, this is a compelling indictment of an America which recklessly chose to prolong a brutal war, even while the means of almost instant victory were in its hands. Whether or not we believe Professor Tart’s vision of a ruthless America plotting to slaughter millions of Japanese, we can at least read his book and be reminded again of the horrific final act of the Pacific War, and understand why the names of Tokoyo, Kyoto and Hiroshima will live on for ever as bywords for the savagery of war.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Of course, even the BBC must suspect that these kind of dial-a-whinge operations aren’t enough to convince the Great British Public that the real victims of July 7 are the people who share an ideology with the bombers. Hence why the BBC has a Plan B: yep, it’s the well-known atrocity story gambit. The Puppy covers some of them, but there’s a lu-lu over here.
Yes, indeed: it’s yet another heart-rending tale of Islamopaths suffering…suffering…well, you know, this:
Since 7 July she has had to endure people staring, pointing and making comments about Muslims and bombers, she says.
As far as actual atrocities go, our correspondent manages a grand total of one. Apparently, some crazed Infidel decided to slam her daughters hand against a rail on a bus, using a trolley while issuing blood-curdling comments about Islam. As methods of inflicting violence go, this seems kind of indirect. Still, we’re supposed to be appalled at the thought that the bus passengers didn’t immediately rise up and lynch the trolley owner ‘cause y’know, there’s no explanation other than ‘Islamophobia’ which can explain London bus passengers ignoring a victim of crime. A-huh.
But let’s leave aside the fact that you could probably kill, BBQ and eat someone in Hyde Park and the locals would pretend not to notice. What we have here is a situation where an elderly woman is struggling to get off a bus with a trolley and catches a young lass on the hand with it. It must happen about a hundred times a day. That’s probably the other reason why the passengers didn’t get involved - they were trying to guess what that stupid cow in the death cult uniform was screeching about. The public know a loony when they see one. It’s just in the Neverland of the BBC where an unlikely tale of crazed bigots inflicting skinned knuckles on the bus can be the moral equivalent someone actually blowing the bus up.
Meanwhile, the arrest of a Native Briton in connection with the violent death of a Muslim passes with nary a comment at the Beeb. Oops, no – turns out it was the other way round. That explains it.
Liberals' antennae naturally only twitter when they detect certain kinds of
stories. That is, I guess, excusable, but what is not excusable is that they
soon become aware of stories they missed for the first time as they weren't
looking for that sort of story and yet continue to embargo them, knowing full
well that at least half the country is interested in that story... or would be,
were they to lower themselves to report on it.
They claim to have the mission of informing the public, but they only want to inform part of the public, and they only want to inform them of stories that seem to advance the liberal cause.
It's been said over and over, but once again, this time with feeling: There's nothing wrong with a partisan press. One could make the case that such a press is more vibrant and more engaged in the battle of ideas than our supposedly objective press. But a partisan press masquerading as an objective one is simply a lie. And a lie that is hurting the political debate.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
A perfect example of the latter genre is can be found here: it’s the Beeb responding to complaints about the Great Rift Valley style gap in coverage between the vicious slaying of Anthony Walker and the vicious slaying of Richard Whelan. Six O'Clock News Editor Amanda Farnsworth can’t get through the first paragraph without lapsing into absurdity:
The tragic murders of Anthony Walker and Richard Whelan on the face of it have similarities.
Both were young men, in the prime of their lives, much loved
by family and friends, cruelly and viciously murdered.
Both were murdered by men who were not of their own ethnic group. Anthony was a black man murdered by white men. Richard was white, murdered by a black man.
But in fact the two murders are very different.
As far as I know, from reading the Press Association wires, listening to the police and reading newspaper coverage, the police are not suggesting there was any racial motive in the killing of Richard Whelan.
....It is this racial element to the crime that makes it different.
The next lines should stand as proof that Liberals will throw any article of faith overboard if needs be:
Racially motivated murders, I'm sure we are all glad to say, are rare events. They are unheard of in this area of Liverpool.
Unfortunately, senseless murders in London are comparatively more common.
In addition, there was a planning and premeditation in the murder of Anthony Walker that was also particularly shocking.
Anthony had walked away from the man racially abusing him but the man appears to have gone to find his friends, and an axe, and chased and killed the 18-year-old.
So let’s take it as read that the BBC isn’t ready to abandon the idea of Dave Lister as the archetypal Scouser and that men prepared to dedicate a quarter of an hour to provoking an incident can’t hardly be said to be acting spontaneously. What we are left with as justification for the enormous gaposis is simply that one attack was racial in nature and one may not have been. A-huh.
At this point, it’s worth considering what definition of racism is being used. Remember that the Beeb was once the employer of Greg “hideously white” Dyke, while also being a big booster for the Macpherson’s inspired concept of ‘institiutional racism’. The point is that the BBC as a body has fully accepted a central part of the Liberal agenda, namely the idea that a charge of racism requires only that an organisation, for whatever reason, acts in such a way as to disadvantage a particular ethnic group. I think we can safely say that this disparity in coverage between these two murders certainly qualifies under that definition. Indeed, even non-Kool Aid drinkers may consider that the disparity in coverage was such as to be objectively racist.
Leaving aside these more philosophical considerations, the fact remains that the BBC’s response begs the question. Doubtless, there are people outside the BBC who think that a racist murder is somehow more shocking than any other form of senseless violence, but there are plenty that don’t. On the contrary, Conservatives reject both the proposition itself and the unpleasant ideology behind it.
This is the true measure of how inbred the BBC has become, how much the Beeb has embraced every form of diversity except the only one that really matters, intellectual diversity. There’s no around in the BBC hierarchy who can take Mandy aside and whisper in her ear that trying to disavow bias by citing the tenets of Liberal identity politics is probably not going to work.
Yes, indeed. Someone must have mentioned racial profiling. Hence the sudden flood of L3 pointing out that the Ummah includes members of every racial group imaginable. When we said that, it was just a slippery evasion, but now Liberals are screaming it at the top of their lungs. Or at least they would be, except they’re all tied up in Liverpool, protesting the fact that officers investigating the death of Anthony Walker haven’t interviewed any 80 year-old grandmothers, Djibril Cisse or the staff of the Forbidden City takeaway.
No, not really.
What really is a slippery evasion is the phrase ‘racial profiling’ itself: no one is talking about using race as a single factor and more to the point, that isn’t what the Left is really objecting to anyway. No one is suggesting that the security forces concentrate their efforts on Druze Arabs, Persian Zoroastrians or Sudanese animists. No – the real debate is about concentrating effort on followers of the ideology which gave the world 9-11, Beslan, Bali, Madrid and London. One ideology was responsible for all these incidents, and many more, but the Left would rather you didn’t mention it. After all – you wouldn’t want to upset the ‘slims – they might do something crazy.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
As far as I’m concerned, morally speaking, we as a nation owe the same duty of care to illegal immigrants as a householder does to a burglar – none at all, and yes, I know our Liberal-dominated legal system has a different view. But it’s not just that either.
No, what really gives the game away is the massive, malignant sense of entitlement on display. Take the ‘all gringos are b*****ds’ ranting of the deceased’s cousin. Where was he issuing these tirades against the feelthy Inglise ? Sao Paulo ? Rio ? No, London. He hates Britain, just not enough to leave it.
We’re talking about people who’ve come to this country to enjoy a life style far beyond anything they could get back home, and their response ? An attitude of whining querulousness, as though to suggest that if we don’t get it sorted, why they'll leave and start bleeding someone else’s country dry. True, Menezes had cheated his way into the county, fiddled his way round all the taxes and regulations that the Left thinks are so important for the natives, and generally made no apparent positive contribution whatsoever to the life of the nation, but that shouldn’t disqualify him from the All-You-Can-Grab entitlement buffet. This is the true nature of multiculturalism: people diving off the 747 and taking full advantage of what life here offers while simultaneously demonstrating utter contempt for this country and everyone in it.