Thursday, September 28, 2006

Tories Gone Wild!

The Cameroonatics are in full cry over in the comments to this post at Guido's place. Read on and see what counts as rational argumentation in the Nu Tory Party.

I'd like to take a UKIP supporter.Shine a bright light in their eyes (cataracts) and really find out what these twits think they're trying to achieve?They must come from some area of high water fluoridation or something.Who votes for a party that brings about the exact opposite result of its purported aims?The REAL loonies aren't on the left anymore.(You can tell there's something wrong with that poor sod Farage just by looking at him though,can't you.)

Hey, it's still smarter than hurling abuse at people then claiming to be mystified as to why they don't vote for you.

Here's another Tory on UKIPs membership:

16,000 members.They don't all come from the same collection of nearby villages,do they?Wild Eyed Banjo Players the lot of them.

Yep, we've now passed the point where the Cameroonatics are more concillatory to terrorists than to the British Right.

An exageration ? Just read what this next one says:

Everyday I wake up hoping that the vast majority of our esteemed membership will leave the party to join UKIP.

UKIP represent the perfect solution to our biggest problem.

If you’re still talking about Europe as if the electorate think it matters, then you clearly have no interest in winning elections and retaining power.

If you think Europe is the key issue at this point, please, please join UKIP!

UKIP are a right wing rural party of little if no political significance - most people live in towns and cities and many people are suspicious of white blokes in green tweed jackets going on about killing foxes!

This is rightly or wrongly a two party state which favours moderate centrist policies.

I would rather be a member of a party with just 1,000 sub 50 year old members able to canvass and organise effectively in today’s world than be hamstrung with a membership who just aren’t expiring quickly enough for my likeing.

Can’t wait for the annual BBC close up of the blue rinse brigade waving union jacks – we give it ‘em on a plate!

Nothing sums up Cameroonacy better than hearing Tories use the phrase 'right-wing' as an insult. As for the desire to see 50+ members die, what can you say ? This is the authentic voice of the Conservative Party's 'moderate centralism'.

Only If You Can Blame Bush

Memo to the MSM: you're not the gatekeepers anymore.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Outrage D'Jour

Given how long the Filth have been splashing around in the cess pit of morally-equivalent, PC posturing, it's a relief to see that there are still some things which can generate a genuine sense of outrage amongst the bill's top brass. It's just a pity their actual grievance is completely ludicrous.

Inspector Gadget is being pursued by the police's own KGB. Not because he betrayed confidential information or anything like that. No, he simply wrote about life as a police officer. For this he is being persecuted. I'd rethink that plan if I was the brass. If they're going to charge him with bringing the police into disrepute, then isn't that just by way of admitting that things have got so bad that any honest report on modern policing would serve to lower the public's opinion of the police ?

Where's Bletchley Park When We Need It ?

As an insane Conservative, I’m all in favour of loosening our gun laws. In fact, I’d be happy if we went the Swiss route, with every adult male having an assault rifle in the house. Guns! Guns! Guns!

What I don’t do is claim that we should relax the gun laws, I think guns are fantastic, but no one actually wants to buy a gun, and large-scale gun ownership is all a tabloid myth anyway. Not everyone feels the same way: the open borders lobby keep assuring us that mass immigration is economic and social viagra, but they keep downplaying the number of immigrants. Huh ? If mass immigration is everything they say it is, why aren’t they shouting from the rooftops about all the people pouring in ?

See, that’s what I keep saying. The MSM have bought into the idea that it’s Conservatives that are the wacky fringe, while the Liberals represent the middle ground, but which side of the spectrum needs to wrap its public comments behind triple layer coding and which comes out and says what they mean ?

Would Sir Care To Try The 'History' ?

Latest from de education system. Good news: someone in the public services is actually innovating, even to the point of – gasp! – ditching national agreements. Bad news – yet again it’s the headbangers who get the sweet deal, and Joe Normal who has to get by on the same ol’, same ol’.

The deeper problem is the usual one – while (sort of) 24 hour schooling may, or may not, encourage some of the loonier individuals to attend, is that really the heart of the problem ? To put it another way, is Ryan really illiterate because the school timetable doesn’t match his natural rythmns, or is it because at every point where he has been challenged to step outside his comfort zone, he has been able to get out of it by whining and playing up ?

Is it any wonder that we know have a large chunk of the nation’s youth unable to even conceive of sustained effort ? Now, we have the educrats answer: more of the same. Apparently, things have got so bad in British schools that they can’t even learn from experience.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Tertiary-Stage Liberalism

See, I told you it was the perfect experiment. Consider recent events. OK, so the jokes write themselves, but what exactly are the McLibs doing that’s so off the wall ? That’s the point I was making: we now have a chance to observe what Liberals do when they’re free of any restraint. This is Liberals' ideal world in glorious technicolour, the natural endpoint of the application of Liberal principles.

The Left doesn’t want to allow schools to discriminate between the well-behaved and the alternatively socialised, the police are to be even-handed between the law-abiding and the differently-moraled, while even the homicidally-gifted are protected from discrimination. So, of course, they don’t want footy clubs to discriminate between the next Wayne Rooney and the next Douglas Bader. Just be thankful no one’s getting beaten to death this time.
PC, Scotland

Is It Just Me ?

Does anyone else hear someone on the news claiming ‘lessons have been learnt’ and immediately think ‘who have the government killed now’ ?

Actually, in this latest case, the Libs have made a significant step forward: they’ve moved on to ‘a number of recommendations had already been acted on’. Who knows ? If the bodies keep piling up, we might even get onto ‘changes have been made’ or the ‘system has been overhauled’.

Can you imagine this in the private sector ? You’d have pizza delivery boys running folks down on zebra crossings, and their manager would explain that they’d ‘shaken-up’ the delivery system and the driver had been given extra training. Nope – that’s point number one: whatever the procedures are, as long as there’s zero accountability, who cares ?

But there’s something deeper here: any number of lessons can be learnt, but the Libs’ obsessive PC means the system can’t work in the first place. What our Liberal friends don’t want to acknowledge was that it was their idiot ideas that put the hapless Russell family in harm’s way in the first place. It was the Left that argued that people who think they’re being chased by radioactive ninja spiders deserve to be treated just like everyone else. So, a known looneytoon admits to homicidal thoughts and nothing is done ? But, of course. He’s got rights, y’know.

The Chutzpah Meter Just Broke

Self-awareness was never a big seller with the Left, but Harriet Harman’s attack on City bonuses has got to be some kind of record. Look at who’s spearheading Nu Lab’s attempts to bamboozle Joe Public into voting for them again. Could it be Patrick Stewart ? Sensors detecting huge wodges of cash, Captain! Ditto, since the Blairs took up residence, Downing St has hosted more footballers than Highbury. But let’s not worry about that – no matter how bad it is having Dave and Victoria in No 10, it still beats Dave and Samantha.

No, the real humbuggery in Nu Lab’s attack on the City is the nature of the people running the whole exercise. The PR flacks and media luvvies are bad enough, but at the heart of the operation, we find a party dominated by communist vampires lawyers. Hello ? They're calling other people overpaid ?

Hey, at least the City provides something people need. What have these treasure-hunting untermensch given us ? Warning on packets of peanuts that say ‘may contain nuts’, police delivering KFC to felons on rooftops and a Legal Aid budget visible from space. And Liberals criticise the City for not producing anything ? If only the same were true for lawyers.

Monday, September 25, 2006

The Curse Of Dave (Deutchsland Edition)

Further evidence for Cameron's unfailing ability to back the wrong horse: not only does Dhimmi Dave give his 'learn to love the mullahs' speech immediatly before the Islamic world calls for the murder of the Pope, but it appears the curse is even more powerful than we thought. Even secondhand, Call Me Dave can cause disaster.

We Have A Winner!

In the comments to this post, Ross suggests a possible spiritual ancestor of David Cameron: Gerald Ratner. Is that the perfect match, or what ? On the one hand we have an arrogant fool who tries to curry favour with the Metropolitan elite by slagging off the folks responsible for his success in the first place, on the other we have a jeweller.

Here's hoping for the same result this time round.

Mean Streets

What is it with this government and cutting corners ? We've got nurse practicioners instead of doctors, teaching assistants instead of actual teachers and now PC Plod is being phased out in favour of PCSOs. So next time you hear about the police being overstretched, it's because the government prefers to spend the mpney on people like this.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Suddenly It All Becomes Clear

In accordance with standard operating practice for the MSM, they've been so busy covering the sex and drugs angle of this story that they've missed another important point.

A senior immigration judge snorted cocaine in a video that showed her having sex with a male judge, a court heard yesterday...

Later, 37-year-old Roselane Driza - employed as a housekeeper by both judges while staying illegally in Britain - used the tapes to blackmail the male judge and demanded £20,000 from the female judge, it was claimed.

So we've got immigration judges employing illegal immigrants. Not that there's an open borders policy or anything.

Remember, judges get to pull laws out of their backside because they're better people than us proles.
unhinged judges, immigration

Elitist ? Us ?

True, the Conservative Party might be losing people faster than Taliban, but Call Me Dave has a whole new strategy to reach out to the man in the street. Who says they're completely divorced from the common man ?
Tories, Cameron

Boyz'N'The Yatch Club

OK, it's a cliche to wonder whether an awards ceremony only open to whites would get this kind of fawning coverage, but that's only because we've never had a decent answer. Still, you have to laugh. Here's one of the premier events for the ethnowhiners and who do they give best UK female to ? Corinne Bailey Rae, favorite of fat sales reps and chintzy wine bars across the country. That's sticking it to The Man!

Is There Something You're Not Telling Us ?

Definition of chutzpah: a media organisation which rushes into print with news of a leaked memo describing operations in a war zone, but which itself censors the memo to hide information unhelpful to its cause. Apparently, the public has a right to know, but not to know too much.

Hey - this isn't a minor matter. The armed services have had nearly a decade of social engineering (and, yes, even now Tony's gay friendly policy is still in effect). Now it turns out that a member of a protected group has got one of the most sought after jobs in Britain despite not being able to actually - within the technical sense of the word - hit the right target

So, what would be a failing grade here ? Apparently, RAF flight training has now gone the way of the GCSE, either that or..... gosh, could there be another explanation ? Who knows ? But , for now, let's just try and process this one fact: at last we've found an Afghan screw-up story the BBC doesn't want to investigate.
friendly fire, war, PC

Things Only Liberals Could Ever Say

"We hid evidence to keep the moral high ground. "
NGO, Islam

This Must Be What They Mean By 'Victimless Crime'

Following on from the case of the Rotten Racist Revver, comes the story of a man convicted for making unknown (but definitely racist) comments to an unidentified Asian. And if that sounds bananas, that’s not even the whole story. The sole witness had this to say:

He was shouting. To me it appeared that he was being venomous. His face appeared quite contorted."

She added: "But I could not swear to the words I did hear."

That’s a punchline all in itself. If she couldn’t swear to her evidence, what’s she doing on the stand ? This is what apparently qualifies as, to quote the magistrates, ‘compelling’ evidence nowadays. Anything to avoid having to explain how you can have someone convicted for saying something if you don’t even know what was said ?

Needless to say, the race hustlers have called the conviction of someone, for saying something, to somebody, a ‘landmark’. I’ll say – it’s a giant road sign saying ‘Welcome To Looneyville’. Interestingly, the Filth gave the informer an award for helping community safety, even before the trial. So, I guess she would have had to hand it back if the accused had been acquitted, right ?

Oh, there’s one other thing: the accused was a member of the BNP – and nothing says ‘solid evidence’ like the MSM having to concentrate on who was convicted and not why. Still, that does lead to some interesting speculation. At least if having extremist views and a contorted face is now actionable, we’ll soon be rid of Cherie Blair.
(hat tip to Juliam)

Friday, September 22, 2006

Running People Down: Another Job The British Just Won't Do

Further evidence of the filth's long, slow death spiral into an anti-matter version of the 'Constable Savage' sketch. Meanwhile, other less serious crimes don't quite attract the same attention.

Thursday, September 21, 2006


See, this is why I never bet. Yesterday I was sure Jenny Tonge's latest love letter to the Islamopaths would secure her another year as Britain's looniest Lib Dem, but I reckoned without a familiar face making a comeback. Using every ounce of her skill, experience and moral degeneracy, Shirley Williams has focused like a laser on possibly the only group of people less sympathetic than the Islamopaths.

Yep, Shirl thinks the whole paedophile thing is just OTT. She doesn't actually mention the vast majority of peaceful paedophiles, but she comes pretty close. She does use the other great appeaser cliche though: it's all down to the media:

One reason for that is the way in which the popular media play upon two things.
One is crime and the other is, specifically, paedophilia.

Crime and paedophillia ? Guess you wouldn't want to confuse the two. And no, Mr Liberal, she didn't simply mispeak - here she is reminsicing about the good old days:

We didn't talk about it in those days. I was education secretary - I know all about paedophilia - but we didn't talk about it when it was in schools.

We told the school to close or to deal with the teacher.

Ah yes, the good old days, when the brats shut up and suffered in silence. The astute observer will notice no reference there to any role for law enforcement. When Liberals criticise the media, it's almost always something like this: public scrutiny making it harder for educrats to cover for perverts in their ranks.

Shirley Williams almost makes a good point when she warns that people - especially men - are avoiding contact with kids through fear of being labelled perverts, but she rebuts her own argument.

If people fear contact with children will lead to them being labelled pervs, this might owe more to the Left than the Right. 'Satanic abuse', 'recovered memories', police trawling operations.... all tactics of the Left.

In contrast, what animates the Right (and the public) is not that the police aren't spending enough time investigating allegations from 25 years ago, it's that when an actual, real pervert is caught, the Left bends over backwards to ensure he gets the lightest sentance possible, then on release all but gives him directions to the nearest playground.

What really enrages the public is that too many of our alleged elite don't actually seem to think preying on kids is all that bad after all - an attitude perfectly exemplified by Williams' speech. There's nothing paranoid about that, it's simply taking what they say at face value. Here it is, a well-respected member of a party suggesting that we should all go back the good old days of blind eyes and treating molesting the kids like turning up for work late. We're just lucky she didn't claim perverts made better teachers because they were more 'hands on'.

What's Wrong With This Picture ?

The Treason Party planned to use their conference to shake off the public impression that Campbell was way too old to be a party leader. And how did they do this ?

The Lib Dems are trying to sell Sir Menzies' personal story and the leader began his speech only after a slideshow about his personal life.

Crivens! Was the magic lantern broken ?

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

At Least They're Not Designing Sewerage Works

In between flirting with homicidal savages, the Treason Party has been pushing more traditional ways to screw up Britain. Take their latest deep thought on how the education system should deal with scum... larval chavs... disruptive... challenging pupils - spread them around a bit and..... well, actually, that's it.

The first problem with their plan to target - ahem! - 'underperforming' pupils is that they're opposed to the testing regime in the first place - maybe they'll use astrology to identify them. But let's not think about that, let's just wonder at the logical trainwreck behind the policy. They're worried that Kyle Headbanger is being left to go to a sink school. Hey - chicken & egg ring any bells ? Apparently not, instead we get the claim that the aforementioned loons are those 'most in need'. Really ? How about those who have real potential but will never fulfil it becuase their school is being wrecked by the presence of the 'needy ones' ?

It's a familiar theme: Liberals believing that a convincing claim to victimhood beats any of those pesky facts. Kyle's upstairs, setting fire to the chemistry labs, so he must be really deep. Meanwhile, any kids who were hoping for an arson-free lesson are SOL.

The wackiest thing though is this. The Lib Dems really think they can persuade good schools to take on Broadmoor cadets by offering cash incentives. Isn't that just like a Lib ? It's the flipside of their conviction that they are super-sensitive int-tel-lektueals. They really think the rest of us are ignorant boors, motivated entirely by filthy lucre. No, fools, good schools are good schools because they're run by people who actually want to do the education thing, rather than say, riot control.

At Least It Isn't Moral Equivalence

Keeping the title 'Craziest Lib Dem' takes doing, but Jenny Tonge has surely managed to retain her crown with her latest comments. Yes, indeed, suicide bombers are more moral than pilots becuase they blow themselves up - is that the perfect example of Liberal reasoning or what ? Not only the curly-whirly logic to find some way - anyway - to indict the West, but the belief that becuase someone feels strongly about something, their point must have value. You have to wonder if it works both ways - how would they feel about a guy who cured cancer just to fill time ?

Ah yes, we can guess the answer from the way they sneer at the pharmaceutical industry for being motivated by profit. True, their products help to save lives, but they don't have the spiritual purity of a guy blowing himself up in a tube train.

This is the logical endpoint of Liberal's worship of emotional incontinence. They respect people who express themselves freely - even if their chosen form of expression involves mass slaughter, and they have contempt for anyone who compromises with the system, man, even if they perform an actual, useful function. It's adolescent angst as policy.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Cheat & Retreat

Obviously, there's a certain lingering disappointement that the Pope has rowed back so hard from his comments on Islam, but I can see why it might be thought good tactics. After all, the Pope issued some mild criticism of the Religion of Peace, at which point the Islamopaths went all.... Islamic. Talk about ramming the point home. Now His Holiness has backpedalled, some will say he's given a boost to the loonies. True, but that just makes it more likely they'll fall into the same elephant trap again.

Even now, after the 83rd non-apology apology, the Pope has still taken a firmer stand than just about any other Western leader. More to the point, he's managed to turn one of the Liberal's favorite tactics against them.

The Left is justfiably notorious for issuing insane policies then retreating once they're exposed to public scrutiny. Loony Left councilors will claim everyone who owns an England flag is a Nazi, then they'll apologise, but they'll still have succeeded in creating a chilling atmosphere.

The Pope has turned that tactic back on the Left. He's given notice that he'll oppose Islamofascism even while gaining plausible deniability. 'Islam ? No, fine religion, not at all an ideology for blood-thirsty morons. Oops - done it again! Sorry everyone!'

Talking Of Education...

Couple of updates to my review of 'It's Your Time You're Wasting'. I mentioned that one of the opening lines alludes to Frank Chalk's former life as a Liberal. Both FC and his his publisher have e-mailed to deny that he was ever a Liberal. Sounds like a guilty conscious...

More seriously though, there's a couple of other things worth noting. Even though the book is formatted as a series of expanded blog posts, they're not actual posts from FC's blog i.e. the book is all stuff. Also, David Copperfield's book is out soon - look upon as a sort of sequel. Which makes three updates.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Like The Berlin Airlift, But With Chips

The culture war turns up in the funniest places. The latest frontline runs through a graveyard in Rotheram, this being the location from which parents are supplying their kids with hot lunches over the school fence. Obviously, with this government's track record, you can understand a need for caution where food is involved, but still, you have to wonder how even Leftards can screw up lunch.

Oops - no, you don't. It's the L3's latest excuse to wag their finger at people with actual lives. Yep, it's the Food Nazis again.

It has to be said that Rotheram blockade runners make unlikely Conservative heroines, but the flip side of that is that 90% of the criticism coming their way in the blogosphere involves calling them ugly, poor or stupid, which doesn't exactly argue against my theory as to the real source of Jamie Oliver's popularity.

Aparet from anything else, is the science even that sound ? Children are not, in fact, mini-adults, and their dietry requirements aren't just (adult requirement/x). Even these days, kids are still at lot more active than adults, for example. Equally, the theory that kids should eat a certain diet now, to prevent problems in their late forties should surely raise an eyebrow anywhere where they aren't serving the kids plutonium burgers. Hey - at 25 I was built like an anaconda, now ten years later, I look like Jabbah the Hutt. To the point, assuring kids that they'll die if they ever come in contact with a Mars bar just vaccinates them off ever taking notice of the whole healthy eating thing - even when they really need it. For that matter who's to say what's really healthy ? Not some posturing Liberal educrat drones, that's for sure. The Atkins diet is fairly wacky, but it surely does something. Ditto, other low-GI diets. To the point, the old paradigm that carbohydrate was good and fat was bad is under seige. Does anyone on the planet think that these prancing show ponies are poring over the Britsh Journal of Dietology and the like ?

That's not to say there isn't such a thing as healthy eating. In particular, many non-insane teachers claim there's a connection between the kids eating what Frank Chalk disparages as 'purple dinosaurs' and post-prandial mayhem.

Equally, there's the question of what you think the mission of a school should be. Liberals could say - they could bear to stop calling us Nazis long enough - that it's the Right that wants schools to play a role intransmitting civilised values to the next generation. Surely not gorging on McRubbish is just part of that ? Well, actually, no. What Conservatives want most of all is personal responsibility and accountability. Food Police insisting everyone in the world eat lentils doesn't qualify.

No doubt the school would claim to be acting in loco parentis here (and plenty of them are completely loco), but we're talking about a clash with the actual parents. For all the propaganda about bad diet, we're either talking about very long-term effects, or we're talking anecdotal evidence. There just isn't the evidence out there that would justify this kind of Big Government power grab - and especially not from teachers (although it is amusing to imagine the reaction if dieticians started insisting that they were the only people who really knew how to run a classroom).

If you're still wondering who the good guys are here, consider these two comments. First up, one of the Rotheram parents:

They prefer to come to us to have their food delivered fresh and hot, which is what they're asking for. We're giving them what they're asking for.

Thereby confirming my theory that capitalism is what happens when the government is around to screw things up.

Now, here's the Head, with a statement that sums up better than Shakespeare could just why Liberals so thoroughly deserve a beating:

I will meet and talk with the parents as long as is necessary because they are parents of this school.

However the dialogue as it stands is really in terms of us persuading them of the effectiveness of the strategy we have put in place.

Sunday, September 17, 2006


It's always amusing when the Left's idiocies rebound on them. As it happens, I think these ladies really do have a case. Once you accept that the government can arbitarily remake an institution that goes back to the dawn of history, why get all hung up on one particular interpretation ? Or to put it another way, opponents of gay marriage could point to all of human history, but what can Liberals cite to justify their discrimination against these ladies ?

It Is That Bad

Few things seem less compelling than the diary of a British school teacher. After all, here’s a profession where, whatever subject they supposedly teach, everyone’s a drama queen. Fortunately, Frank Chalk is perhaps the only teacher in Britain who doesn’t think he’s Jesus on the Cross. Even more staggeringly, not only is he remorseless in his depiction of the ‘kids’, he doesn’t spare some of his colleagues either.

The obvious analogue to Frank Chalk’s style is David Copperfield – so obvious in fact that not only are their books published by the same firm, their blogs include links to each other’s book. Come to think of it, given a few years either way, they’re probably dealing with the same demographic.

As may be expected, the book is mainly a series of expanded blog posts. Obviously, that means both a degree of frustration as interesting areas are never really explored, and some repetition (how many ways are there to say some kid swore at you) ? Indeed, at some points the book just appears to be a continuous series of educational atrocity stories. This seems to reflect a deliberate decision by FC to concentrate on a worm’s eye view of the educational chaos in British schools – after all, the definitive work on the loony strategies dominating British education has already been written. IYTYW serves as a perfect compliment to Melanie Phillips’ book. MP told us why the education system had collapsed, while FC tells us just how bad it’s become. Or to put it another way, expect all those Libs who claimed MP’s book was worthless as she had no experience of teaching, to dismiss FC’s book as purely anecdotal.

Actually, it is true that the book works best as pure reportage. FC provides confirmation of everything we’ve ever suspected about our education system. Even a cynic like me was shocked at the mayhem recorded therein. As I’ve said, FC doesn’t spare his ‘fellow professionals’ either. Equally, FC is unsparing in his assault on the dependency culture. In fact, he makes an important point: schools now are not only not preparing pupils for adult life, in so far as they are rewarding bad behaviour, they’re positively harmful. Ditto, FC reminds us that even in the worst schools, there is genuine potential in some pupils. That’s another important point. If we have to listen to Libs wax lyrical about the cruelty and wasted potential inherent in the 11+, then it’s worth remembering those kids doomed right now never to reach their full potential.

One thing remains though: to return to a question I’ve raised before, just why do they do it ? FC himself gives us a clue when in the third sentence of the book he claims was once ‘a nice, liberal bloke who believed in the British education system.’ Hey, what’s nice about Liberalism ? This is where we are in the culture wars: Liberals regularly compare Conservatives to Nazis, crooks or the retarded, meanwhile Conservatives act as though the meltdown in our public services is the result of a series of unfortunate coincidences. Just how seriously can we take the Conservative Party’s claims to support educational reform, when they won’t even tell the truth about what’s wrong in the first place ? If nothing else, this book shows just how high the stakes are.

Moore Is Less

Last week was the week when Muhammad Abdul Bari claimed that if native Britons didn’t stop linking Islam with terror, every Muslim in the country would turn into a suicide bomber. And that still wasn’t the stupid contribution that week.

The winner was, predictably enough, Call Me Dave, with a bold attempt to reach out to Michael Moore. All the usual Dave trademarks were present and correct. Take his attempt to have his political cake and eat it, by denouncing anti-Americanism, while alluding to every Yank hating stereotype imaginable, even to the point of whining about ‘neo-Conservatism’ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
We should be solid but not slavish in our friendship with America.

Which begs the question where he thinks we've been slavish.
We have never, until recently, been uncritical allies of America.
Uncritical ? What would count as 'critical' ? Tony Blair self-immolating on the steps of the US embassy ?
We have for more than half a century acted as a junior partner to the United States… I worry that we have recently lost the art.
Still. Waiting. For. Actual. Complaint.
I fear that if we continue as at present we may combine the maximum of exposure with the minimum of real influence over decisions.
Hang on a mo’ – Dave just got through telling us how Britain has to act independently, now he’s complaining that those damn Yankees act too independently. But let’s not let the superficial humbuggery blind us to the more profound problem. All this talk of ‘exposure’ is just by way of saying that British policy should be driven by the likelihood of drawing fire. The cowardice and amorality behind this position is despicable, but consider too the utter inability to understand the nature of the enemy. They will strike as and when it serves their agenda. Yes, they will be more likely to strike at countries actively opposing them, but there is no peace to be had by craven appeasement.
But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making.

Humility, and patience.
Yes, we’re going to wage war in a humble and patient way. It’s absurd, of course, injected for no better reason than to take a shot at the arrogant and impulsive America (i.e. the one that doesn’t exist anywhere except in moonbats’ imagination).

The next bit is even better:
They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years.

But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline.

They were unrealistic and simplistic.
Mr Kettle, we have an e-mail from

C’mon – Cameron trying to cast himself as a deep thinker ? He can’t even keep the same thought together in a single paragraph. Exhibit A:
They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world - and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch.
Huh ? Let’s translate that into English: ‘the Right believes that good and evil are real concepts, and that good and evil are perfectly interchangable’. That doesn’t even make sense on its own terms.

Mind you, at least that sodium penthol is having an effect:
I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative.
At least he’s 50% right. That’s progress. But I think we’ll need to continue the treatment for a while yet, at least to judge by the first of his five propositions:
First, that we should understand fully the threat we face.
Yes, we need to understand the threat, instead of taking refuge in platitudes like this:
[The terrorists] are driven by a wholly incorrect interpretation - an extreme distortion - of the Islamic faith, which holds that mass murder and terror are not only acceptable, but necessary.
Of course, Cameron means ‘understand’ in the PC sense of the word, i.e. blind acceptance rather than any real attempt to get at what motivates the enemy. In a similar vein, consider this:
The danger is that by positing a single source of terrorism - a global jihad - and opposing it with a single global response - American-backed force - we will simply fulfil our own prophecy.
But it isn’t ‘a single global response’ – in Thailand, China, Nigeria, Russia and many other places, Infidels are fighting to save civilisation. But that’s the thing about the America haters, for all that they call the US insular, it’s them that can't get east of Ellis Island. You could throw a bucket of water over Liberals at 3 AM and they’d jerk awake denouncing America.

There’s a moment of self-awareness coming up though.
The transformation of a country from tyranny to freedom does not begin and end with regime change and the calling of elections.

Put another way, democracy is not the foundation of freedom.

Democracy itself has foundations, without which it cannot stand.
Exactly, deposing a leader and installing a new one does no good at all if the new guy isn’t prepared to do what needs to be done to reverse the previous regimes excesses - which is another reason not to vote for the ‘heir to Blair’.

Needless to say, such insights are few and far between. Instead we have stuff like this:
The ambition to spread democracy is noble and just.

But it cannot be quickly achieved to suit a political timetable.

Because it takes time, it cannot easily be imposed from outside.

Liberty grows from the ground - it cannot be dropped from the air by an unmanned drone.

Like, that's totally profound, maaaaan!
You can't carry out nation-building unless the people inside a country want to build a nation.

Hence the brutal guerrilla wars in Germany and Japan.
Bombs and missiles are bad ambassadors.
Judging by the Foreign Office’s track record, so are actual ambassadors. It’s a false duality anyway. Is it a coincidence that following the Iraq invasion, Libya gave up its nuke program and Syria withdrew from Lebanon ? It works both ways. Bin Laden himself cited the US withdrawal from Somalia to drum up support. Insane though he is/was, Bin Laden knew that basics of power. While Bin Laden talked about strong horses and weak horses, Dave offers something new: the dead horse. For all Dave’s critcisms of the Right, he can’t offer anything better than the same ol’, same ol’, multilateral, supranational, institutional blather.

Actually, it’s far worse than that. Call Me Dave doesn’t just want to outsource national security to the klepocrats in Noo Yark, nope, he also wants to give Cherie Blair and friends a veto too.

A moral mission requires moral methods.

Without them, we are merely war-makers.

Might becomes our only standard of right.

And we sink in the esteem of the world.
How can we go on without the esteem of the world ? Well, quite easily actually. Britain probably lost the world’s esteem when the Royal Navy waged war on slavers. Would Dave have opposed that war too ?
That is why we must not stoop to conquer.

We must not stoop to illiberalism - whether at Guantanamo Bay, or here at home with excessive periods of detention without trial.
Hey, in the self-same speech Dave was telling us that the wogs were too chaotic to handle the whole democracy thing, but now he’s telling us that terrorists are motivated by the government’s failure to fully implement the European Convention on Human Rights. This was where we came in. If some guy is watching the news when he sees a story he doesn’t like, so he goes out and blows up a bus, he probably wasn’t a moderate anyway.
We must not turn a blind eye to the excesses of our allies - abuses of human rights in some Arab countries, or disproportionate Israeli bombing in Lebanon.

We are fighting for the principles of civilisation - let us not abandon those principles in the methods we employ.
Civilised warfare ? Again, I refer back to the examples of Germany and Japan. More to the point though, back not five minutes ago, Dave was talking about the importance of multilateralism and the world’s esteem. Now he’s admitting that, actually, large parts of the world are hell holes. So, which is it ? Should we respect the views of our fellow UN member, the Peoples Republic of Enema, or should we refuse to turn a blind eye ? Which principle, so to speak, is the principle one ?

Some politicians grow in stature in time of crisis, Churchill, Bush and Guilliani for example. Others are exposed, competent in the peacetime world of frivolous posturing and synthetic emotion, but lacking the skills for real leadership. Cameron is very definitely of the second type.

In many ways, Cameron is a politician out of his time. Just like his idol, Cameron is the perfect 1990s politician, a touchy-feely, happy-clappy, leader of our national group hug. The difference is that deep beneath all the Third Way drivel, Blair possessed both a vestigial moral sense and the ability to grasp the central realities of this war, while Cameron lacks both these abilities.

This is the central absrdity in Cameron claiming to have a more sophisticated approach than those pesky ‘neo-Cons’. Whatever the deficiencies of the Right, it is the Left that remains not only wedded to a single worldview, but to a one that died on September 11. Similarly, Cameron’s thinking remains firmly mired in the 1990s simply because he has no real ideas on how to deal with this century’s threats.

The inevitable result of a Party – or anyone else - that bases its policy on refusing to face reality is cognitive dissonance. Hence the attempts to square the circle with insane conspiracy theories about naughty neo-Cons and the like. Hence the urge to concentrate on eco-displacement. Anything to avoid having to take a stand on the greatest issue of the age. Expect Michael Moore to be guest of honour at Conference before 2008.

The real irony is that Opus Dave’s favourite tactic is to compare the Conservative Right to Labour’s 1980s Militant Tendency. They’re both extremists making their Parties unelectable, see ? Except, hang on, what was the definitive example of 1980s Labour lunacy ? Ah yes, unilateral nuclear disarmament, a position that was toxic not only on its own terms, but also in the sense that it was the perfect barometer of how unserious the Left was in dealing with Soviet thuggery. Now, fast-forward twenty years and it’s the Conservative Party which not only wants to coddle totalitarians, but thinks it can pick up votes doing so.

But how big is the Michael Moore tendency in this country anyway ? Fortunately, the Spanish division of the VRWC recently carried out an experiment into this very topic. The Left might have mau-maued people into mouthing multiculti platitudes, but when the rubber meets the road, Joe Public is under no illusions about where the threat is really coming from.

What we have is a public enraged by how the government’s natural sloth combined with political correctness has combined to do all but give terrorists an access all areas pass, but the Conservative Party thinks ordinary people should just shut up and trust the security provided by government drones. How does that work ? For those who really do think Fatty Moore is a prophet, there's always the Lib Dems, but right now no one's representing folks who worry that PC is giving terrorists a pass (even when they're right). Tory strategy makes no sense politically, but there's something deeper there. This is the issue that exposes the void at the heart of the Party.

If a Conservative Party doesn’t stand for national defence, what does it stand for ? Here’s an absolute bottom line issue. Cameron might hope to keep natural Conservatives onboard by giving them the hope that somehow his government can’t be as bad as Blairs, but even on an absolutely core issue, he’s prepared to give the store away. After this, there’s nothing the Conservative Party can be trusted on.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

More Reasons To Go The Chippy

Is there anything sadder than a one-hit wonder trying to relive his moment of glory ? Jamie Oliver now claims he didn’t go far enough – he wants to ban packed lunches in schools. Isn’t that just like a Lib ? These people must lie awake at night scared that someone, somewhere is outside their power.

Also conforming exactly to Liberalism’s Standard Operating Practices, Oliver wants to make sure we know just how rebellious and radical he is:

I've spent two years being PC about parents, now is the time to say 'if you're giving your young children fizzy drinks you're an a*******, you're a t*****.

Like, passion, man. I guess going for the emotion thing is probably the best idea in his case – logic is not his strong suite.

Speaking after the screening of the new programme, he was particularly critical of parents who give their children Red Bull - an energy drink - when they are tired, saying it was not much better than giving them a line of cocaine.

Huh ? Does that mean the police should be staking out Starbucks ? Actually, coke is probably cheaper, but I get the feeling his Media Luvvey status would be revoked if he claimed the metrosexual yuppie scums' favourite hang-out was sort of like a crack house.

That’s the bottom line, of course. For all Oliver’s faux populist posturing, his shtick is sneering at chav scum for the erudition of fellow pseudo-intellectual ponces. Indeed, that could be said about 90% of the media’s coverage of this subject. Otherwise, why would the media constantly refer to ‘cheeseburgers’ ? Isn’t, say, chicken madras kind of fattening as well ? Again, that would strike too close to home.

At this stage, the Food Wars are just an excuse for a bunch of snobs to denounce Joe Public in terms that would make an 18th century aristocrat blush. Of course, some will point out that there really are people out there eating themselves into an early grave. Well, sure, but the real question is whether or not this kind of obtrusive big government is the cure or the cause. Should be surprised that some people take so little responsibility for their health when Big Government is so anxious to take it off their hands ?

Monday, September 11, 2006


Over at the Rotty Pup, folks are writing about their memories of five years ago. I can't say my memories of that day were particularly iconic. When I think back, two things dominate my memories: beans & Dick Van Dyke. I was 'working from home' (i.e. not working at all) and I was having a late lunch when I decided to watch Diagnosis Murder, and so tuned in at around 14:32 to see the towers burn.

I remember - in a too perfect for fiction taste of the future - the BBC recaped events by explaining that a plane had hit the WTC, even while replaying the footage of the second aircraft hitting. So even with the war less than an hour old, and the reality of attack blindingly obvious, the BBC was already retreating into terminal blather.

To be honest, I've never been one to watch history unfold. After an hour I decided that all this TV wasn't getting the job done. I went upstairs to do some work and so missed the days other iconic images, the collapse of the towers. Seeing them fall later that night was somehow more disturbing than seeing the planes hit - a plane crash and a fire was one thing, but bringing down the towers ? After that, anything was possible.

If I'd been asked on that day why I thought America was attacked, I'd have said that it was US support for a Jewish supremacist state insistant on maintaining virtual colonies in the Occupied Territories. I suspect I'm not the only one who's learnt a lot these last few years. The trouble is while there are plenty of people whose worldview fell down with the towers, plenty of other folk are still resolutely stumbling round in the dust cloud - and if the dust ever threatens to settle, they'll kick it up again.

The Left will allow the attacks to be commemorated, but only as some kind of tragedy, some kind of misfortune. To them, Sep 11 isn't a call to action, it's a call to unfocused victimhood, a celebration of powerlessness. The thing is they're exactly right - albeit only in the personal sense. September 11 was the day Liberalism was exposed as a ludicrous folly. Everything Liberals had ever said was exposed as a lie.

This is why all Liberal coverage of the attacks remains firmly rooted in the abstract. That's why they talk of 'planes' hitting the towers, of the 'towers' being destroyed. They can't say that terrorists killed thousands of people, instead they want to talk about the 'root causes', the 'real issues', and anything else that will let them retreat back into fairly land away from the grim reality of mass slaughter. Only in dreamland does Liberalism still make sense.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

But I Thought It Was Under Control...

Just occasionally Libs get so caught up in pushing one message they they accidentally tell the truth. Take this latest report by a bunch of Liberal educrats, they want more ethnic minority school governers to...well, let's hear from them directly:

The School Governors' One-Stop Shop said it was important to "keep up with a rapidly changing environment".

Nope, no open borders here.

Not Exactly Crushing The Stereotype

I think most people in the blogosphere have no heard about Stephen Green getting arrested for alleged 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour' in Cardiff. Obviously, there are all kinds of serious implications here, but personally I'm just having trouble with one thing. Here we have tens of thousands of Tinky-Winkys in a park, and they're claiming to be harassed, alramed or distressed by a lone guy armed with some leaflets. What a bunch of queers.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Why Do They Do It ?

Just picked up a copy of Frank Chalk's excellent book - of which more in a later post - but one thing comes immediatly to mind. Frank starts by pointing out he used to be a Liberal before he experienced the chaos of the modern school system. That seems to be a common theme. It was the collapse of the school system that first pushed Melanie Phillips from Guardianista to Daily Mail stalwart. Meanwhile, locally - in the virtual sense - Laban also turned to the Dark Side after seeing what was going on in Britain's schools.

I'm sure plenty of other people have the same experience. I've given up expecting moral behaviour from Leftists, but surely they must be able to see what this is doing to them politically ? The education system is the best advert the British Right has, so why do Liberals put up with it ? Actually, that could be part of the answer there. As recent events have shown, there is no one the Left won't line up with, if the Right hates them. Hey - at least, the NUT hasn't started blowing stuff up yet.

Then there's the Ann Coulter joke that the traditional greeting at Democrat conferences is 'And what do you teach' ? The grass roots of Labour and the Treason Party are absurdly dominated by teachers, but surely even that can't explain why the Left is prepared to haemorrage supprt from its natural allies through turning a blind eye to the collapse of the education system ? Just what do they get out of it ?

More Moderation

Amongst the evidence cited by the Left in the unmasking of the Felix Leiter of the Brit Blogosphere is the fact that he links to a BNP member. Oops - me too!

All of which proves nothing, except that Liberal criticism of the Right always devolves down into a version of the old song about the girl who danced with a man whose danced with a girl whose danced with the Prince of Wales. Hey - they might not have any actual grounds for argument, but they can prove you once to linked to some guy who linked to a guy who might know some people with loony views.

These people are obsessed with proving that everyone on the Right really is part of some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Personally, I think all this is pretty weak, but OK, Libs, let’s have it your way. Let’s look at which side is in bed with actual extremists.

Bashir Maan, Muslim community leader and former Glasgow city councillor, described Sajad Ahmed Rana, the man at the centre of the Molly Campbell case as 'as a loving father.'

Meanwhile, Glasgow MP Mohammed Sawar contributes the phrase 'respected businessman' (not normally a phrase used by Labour MPs) and reminds us that he had known Rana for 15-20 years.

The only problem is that we know the grounds cited by Rana in his claim for custody in Pakistan: the mother is a Christian, and she lives with a man to whom she is not married.

So think about that. In between whining about Islamophobia, these guys have been palling around with a bloke who thnks Christians don't deserve custody rights. This is what qualifies for 'repected' status amongst moderate Muslims. Hey - no one held a gun to their heads and forced them to pay fulsome praise to this nut - they did it themselves - but at least they didn't link to any extremists. Oops again!

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Flirting With Bombers

Plenty of politicians spend their lives missing bandwagons, but in its own way it's quite impressive how David Cameron not only manages to miss every time, but manages to time his jump so as to get run over by the wagon coming back the other way.

Take events in South Zimbabwe. Just as even hardened Libs are admitting that, actually, it's kind of falling apart, Dave suddenly goes all weak at the knees over the Rainbow Nation.

Needless to say, the quality of thought is as good as ever. He's thinks the Conservative Party was wrong to call the ANC a terrorist organisation. So what does he think we should call an organisation that bombs supermarkets, bar and sports crowds ? Extreme demonstrators ? The ANC occasionally roused itself to attack people who actually worked for the South African state, but many of the targets seem to have been attacked for no reason other than they offered the opportunity to slaughter people, both white and black - and that's before considering the ANC's reign of terror in the townships.

See, this is the flip-side of the Mandela myth. True, Mandela is part of the reason why the transition to (sort of) democracy went better than almost anyone on the right thought it would, but then part of the reason so many expected disaster was Mandela himself. As the puffy-faced reptile's smarter namesake reminds us, Mandela embraced the ideology that helped make North Korea what it is today. Add in the effect of the ANC's bloodlust and gangsterism, and it's an open question whether they helped or hindered the end of Apartheid.

That's the other thing. The peaceful transition couldn't have happened without the agreement of the whites. So how exactly does Cameron get that Lady Thatcher's policy of constructive engagement was the one proven wrong ? It was the Liberals with all their talk of the need for bloody revolution who were left watching history pass them by.

If nothing else, can we get some agreement here ? Liberals claim Lady Thatcher was evil for trying to engage with South Africa rather than supporting sanctions, meanwhile the US is evil for supporting sanctions against Cuba, instead of engaging with its thuggish government. So which is it ?

For that matter, if we're not allowed to call people who leave bombs on the bread counter 'terrorists' - or at least, not if they're 'oppressed', just how much more latitude do we have to give to people who are fighting against genocidal fanatics, and still bend over backwards to try and avoid killing civilians ? A lot less, apparently.

That's the bottom line here. It's not about Africa in the 1980s, it's about Britain right now. As Prime Minister, David Cameron will have to deal with the threat of terrorism, yet here he is buying into exactly the kind of idiotic moral relativism previously the exclusive property of the Left. Blowing up shoppers is OK if you're oppressed - and never mind whether or not your homicidal interlude actually has any connection with the alleged opression. Just what crimes can't be justified by this argument ? Rape ? Piracy ? Slave trading ? Hey - you know the Conservative Party is in low water when it sounds more outraged by people driving 4x4s than by mass slaughter.

Instead of terrorists being assured that violence will gain them nothing except certain death, they now know that Cameron thinks terrorism is kind of OK if you think you're being oppressed, so why not cobble together a semi-plausible claim to victimhood, kill a few Brits and see PM Cameron roll over ? He's sticking a giant 'Kill Me!' sign on the back of every British citizen, post-dated until his election. The first duty of any government - a Conservative one most of all - is the defence of the realm. Cameron's idiotic posturing has strengthened the forces of chaos and made it infinitly more likely that this country will be attacked under his government. This is the very definition of unfitness to govern.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Found: Good Liberal

On the subject of stupid slags, I was pleased to see the anniversary of the death of Princess Di marked appropriately (i.e. not at all). The Guardian is baffled by the contrast between the insane situation following her death, and the complete lack of interest now. Personally, I don’t see the paradox – both are two sides of the same coin.

Princess Di never articulated any kind of coherent ideology. She made no contribution to any intellectual endeavours. She demonstrated neither bravery nor skill in any pursuit. No great achievements attach to her name. All of which misses the point – she didn’t become famous in spite of her lack of talent, she became famous because of it. She was the High Priestess of Populist Elitism.

You didn’t have to be smart, courageous or hard-working to join this elite, you just had to be caring. Au contrair, actually doing anything merely opened you up for criticism. Diane scourged doctors for being insensitive – possibly the only sin the cult actually recognised – in their treatment of AIDS patients, but it was the insensitive ones who invented drugs like AZT which made a real difference to the lives of AIDS patients.

That was the genius of her position, it gave moral sanction to people to be whiny, ineffectual, narcisstic losers (but caring ones!) She was both a founder and a great exemplar of the posturing, preening therapy nation culture. In so far as Diane actually stood for anything, it was vacuous emotionalism and posturing expediency. What could be more fitting than that the pin-up girl for cultural nihilism should fade so rapidly from the public consciousness ?

Day of the Pigs

Mercifully, even in this country it is rare to have a situation that flushes out quite as much pond scum as the Molly Campbell case. The poor lass herself has just given a news conference at which she claims she’s happy in Pakistan, is taking a Muslim name and she would really like to keep her head on her shoulders.

Actually, that last bit was kind of implicit rather than stated openly. Needless to say, the MSM- ever alert to news of secret government conspiracies – has reported uncritically that a young girl trapped in a Fifth World hellhole has spoken out in support of her honour-killing hosts. Apparently, ‘context’ is for the neo-cons.

It has to be said that this isn’t exactly the line the MSM takes with other abduction cases. Predictably, the winner of Best In Show was the BBC, effortlessly transitioning from po-faced moral outrage about cases like this or this, to soft-focus blather now. What can it all mean ?

Just when we thought we might have reached rock-bottom, a familiar villain turned up with some dynamite and diamond-tipped drills. Yep, it’s Mohammed Sarwar MP

My mind is open because at the end of the day we have to ensure what is in the best interest of the children, the mother and father and I'm sure they will listen to me.

Yes, we need to decide what is in the best in interests of the child. We need some kind of body that can make these choices, something like, ooh, I don’t know, a family court perhaps ?

Seriously, isn’t this just the perfect exemplar of the Islamopaths' interpretation of citizenship ? Here we have Mohammed Sarwar, sitting in our Parliament, making our laws, but when the law goes against a ‘brother’, suddenly that’s just grounds for more discussion. Heads they win, tails we throw again. Just don’t expect anyone is the MSM to ask him what he thinks of the grounds the father uses to justify his actions.

A vote of thanks too for our ‘independent judiciary’. These people turn the freakout meter to 11 everytime a politican criticises sentencing policy, but now we have an MP outright ignoring the decision of the courts, and it’s all quiet on the western front.

But what of the mother ? Isn’t it hard not to have some sympathy with her ? No, actually, I find it very easy. We have long passed the point where anyone has an excuse for not knowing the true nature of Islam. Hell, let’s call it like it is – 10:1 on she’s another stupid tart who thought it was wild and outrĂ© to get involved with a bloodthirsty fascist scumbag.

Just as long as his sadistic cruelty was all outside the home, she was a willing accomplice. It’s only now her ox is being gored that she suddenly has a problem with the Paedo-Prophets' insane ideology. Hey – you know who else won’t get to see their loved ones again ? The victims of the over five thousand terrorist attacks carried out by Islamopaths since Sep 11. I’ll save my sympathy for them, not for treasonous whores who willingly chose to serve murderous savages.

Friday, September 01, 2006

All Will Celebrate Diversity, Or Face The Consequences

In case you missed it, a few weeks back the Pink Whiners took a shot at Gordon Brown. Not that Brown had done, or even said, anything to offend them, it was just he hadn’t assumed the correct position of grovelling obsequiance, or as I think of it, ducky dhimmitude. This turned out to be a case of overreach, but fortunately for them, they’ve now found some more realistic victims.

Four Glasgow firefighters have been disciplined after refusing orders to take part in a homosexualist rally. And no, it wasn’t on fire at the time. Hey – I’m a broad-minded kind of guy, I can understand why these guys might want some hunky firemen there parading their choppers, but they should hire them themselves, with their own money.

As it happens, the cover story was that they were there to hand out leaflets on fire safety. Apparently, they want us to believe either that spontaneous human combustion is a serious problem at ‘gay rights’ rallies, or that the best time to interest gays in fire safety is when they’re at an event chiefly known for insane politics, rampant drug abuse and industrial-scale promiscuity. Hello ? Let’s try a little thought experiment here: just suppose you’ve downed 10 pints and suddenly you’re surrounded by scantily-clad nurses, then some guy walks up to you and says ‘don’t forget to regularly check your tyres for signs of excessive wear’. Like, whatever, dude. I’m not seeing Kwik-Fit getting a lot of trade out of that scenario.

Of course, the cover story is ludicrous, but that’s kind of the point. Theodore Dalyrmple nailed it when he said that PC didn’t exist because Liberals really thought that making people call thieves ‘undocumented logistics operatives’ made them feel better about scum. Au contrair, the very fact that the State forces people to state as truth something they know to be insane is, in both senses, utterly demoralising. The very guilt people feel as they state that terrorists are ‘extreme demonstrators’ is used against them, to beat them down to the point where they make no judgements at all, blindly accepting whatever the State says.

Incidentally, lest anyone be tempted to argue that this event was some kind of politicially-neutral, feel good festival, let’s just consider some of the middle of the road policies this event endorses. There’s the unhinged hatred of the religious on show at this event, the obsession with indoctrinating even the youngest children, not to mention the use of ‘hate crimes’ laws to silence opponents.

More to the point though, just listen to what the leading lights of the ‘gay rights’ organisations themselves say. Here’s Johann Hari slagging off Little Britain’s Matt Lucas. True, Matt may be gay in the sense of, y’know, having sex with men, but he isn’t...well, a hysterical weenie, actually. So there you have it, from one of the bright stars of the Pink Wedge: gay isn’t about actual botty-slapping, no, it’s about endorsement of a specific (loony) agenda.

Forcing public servants to attend this event was a blatant endorsement of an extremist political agenda and an act of political thuggery. Making holding down a job in the public sector dependant on attendance at political rallies has previously been the hallmark of countries such as Cuba or North Korea. All of which does raise one question.

Blair, inevitably, appears to be happy with the idea of using public servants to endorse far-out Liberal lunacy. Gordon Brown may well not be so happy, but where’s you-know-who ? Wasn’t the whole excuse for Call-Me-Dave throwing Social Conservatives under the bus that he was endorsing a more Libertarian agenda ? Now, here we have the State forcing its employees to attend political rallies, where is Dave ? Where, indeed.