Wednesday, November 29, 2006

A Case So Shocking We Had To Lie About It

The BBC has found its Rosa Parks for the new century. Some imams stormed off a flight in the US after they were subjected to the horror of a security check just because they…. Well, actually the BBC would rather you didn’t ask why exactly they’d attracted suspicion. Rottypup gives us a brief rundown of what the BBC would rather you didn’t know, and reminds us of the BBC’s previous form in this area.

There’s more as well. All of which is by way of saying that the BBC’s case doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. Liberals claim to be opposed to ‘ethnic profiling’ – or, as I call it, ‘people who follow the same ideology as 95% of the world’s terrorists profiling’ - not because they’re a bunch of snivelling dhimmis, nope, it’s because they genuinely believe that other profiling indicators work far better. Well, here we are. Six passengers with more red flags than the Kop at Anfield, but Liberals are still whining.

Sounds to me like it’s not the Right that’s obsessing about ethnicity. If this case had involved six priests, the Left would be citing it evermore to prove that ethnic profiling doesn’t work. In contrast, it worked fine in this case. Nasty ol’ ethnic profiling and the type of profiling the Left claims to like both pointed to the same six guys, at which point they stormed off. It would be nice to know exactly why they objected so strongly to being checked over by security, but it looks like the MSM won’t be asking them anytime soon. I’m guessing this is the one case where the Left won’t claim that if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.

It turns out that profiling is like just about everything else in the war on terror. Liberals claim to be in favour of security screening in principle, but whenever they’re confronted with it in the real world, it’s never quite right. Maybe that’s the answer for the BBC ? Conservatives should claim we’re fully in favour of the idea of a licence fee, but we’re to opposed to the actual specifics of the whole ‘fee’ for a ‘licence’ concept ?

Liberals In Hell

Teachers squaring off against lawyers ? What's a Lib to do ? Produce reams and reams of action plans, strategies and other displacement activities, of course.

Funnily enough, none of these great ideas address the central problem, namely the imbalance that exists built into the legal system whereby m'learned friends can coin it in from a successful case but if it all goes horribly wrong ? Well, who cares ? At least you have to pay a pound to enter the lottery.

Buggy Whip Manufactuers Call For New Curbs On Horseless Carriages

I’m not really qualified for this one. It really takes someone like DK to deal with this (and indeed he has). Still, I got to say, in so far as this speech encapsulates the moral and intellectual death spiral of the MSM, it is the best argument yet why blogs are needed.
Press Complaints Commission director Tim Toulmin said he opposed government regulation of the internet, saying it should a place "in which views bloom".

But unless there was a voluntary code of conduct there would be no form of redress for people angered at content, and there would be no excuse to later claim that the ‘voluntary option has failed’ and bring in restrictive laws.
Actually, I added that last bit myself.

Anyway, where are these country vicars unfairly vilified by blogs ? Just how many ‘innocent civilians’ have been victims of blogging ? 25 ? 10 ? 5? Fortunately, we already have laws in place to protect people who’ve been unfairly defamed and, yes, they apply whether or not that’s done in print, on the net or written in a snow drift. Let’s compare the number of successful libel cases against the MSM versus those against blogs, hmmmmm ?

Some might point out that defamation cases take years, and shed-loads of cash, to come to court. Well, OK, but it’s not like the MSM hasn’t benefited from that for years. It only became a problem when bloggers came on the scene.

Newspapers have a built-in advantage not available to Joe Public, hence the old lines about not arguing with people who buy newsprint by the barrel load. Doubtless, Whiny Tim would claim the Press Complaints Commission offers members of the public some protection – but does it really ? Members of the public wronged by the MSM have to submit a complaint to an MSM body,which will spend several months considering it before either dismissing totally or giving the newspaper in question a slap on the wrist

In contrast, everyone’s equal in the blogosphere. Even if the supposed injured parties – which no one can find – don’t blog themselves, and don’t know how comment boxes work, for every cat blogger, there’s a dog blogger ready to argue the toss. It’s a true market for opinion, with lies torn apart faster, and far more brutally, by fellow bloggers than the pencil-sucking insiders at the PCC have ever managed with the MSM.

But, of course, Whiny Tim isn’t really on about actual, provable defamation at all. He’s talking about people who are merely ‘angered by content’. Lest the point need driving home, look where he was speaking:
He spoke during a session on free speech at a London race conference.
…before retiring next door to the Annual Conference of Jewish Pig Farmers. This isn’t about Sussex scoutmasters being unfairly labelled paedophiles, it’s the MSM and the race hustlers prepping the ground for another witch hunt over ‘hate speech’. But that’s alright, because as Whiny Tim points out:
Mr Toulmin described the phrases "free speech" and "free press" as relative terms because views expressed on the internet are still governed by laws such as libel and data protection.
So, we need new laws because the net is too anarchic, but we shouldn’t worry about them because we already have laws covering the net. I’m glad we got that sorted.

It’d be tempting to ask Whiny Tim just how he thinks a law should be drafted to prevent people being ‘angered’, but that’s sort of the point. The category of ‘stuff that makes people angry' is so broad that almost anything's covered. Except, of course, that it’ll turn out like the Public Order Act which apparently bans handing out leaflets, but not calling for beheadings. But don’t expect the MSM to complain about all this. Just remember, it's the blogosphere that's untrustyworthy!

Monday, November 27, 2006

Enlightening The Ordinaries

James Lileks is actually writing about US senator John Edwards, but the points he makes are more widly applicable. The best line is this one:

...being lectured by the scion of a millionaire trial lawyer is a little like scolding classmates for drinking Tang instead of having Alfred hand-squeeze a dozen Valencias.
Remind you of anyone ?

Life, Liberty And The Fundemental Human Right To Blow Stuff Up

Yep. Someday soon we’re going to find out that Shami Chakrabarti is being secretly employed by the Home Office. I actually think the Times is being too nice to her. She certainly pushes a crypto-anarchic view of civil liberties, but only when dealing with fellow Leftists.

Certainly, there’s been nothing equivalent to the ACLU’s famous defence of the right of the KKK Nazis to march. Au contrair, while Shami keeps a stock of onions ready for use whenever the rights of Islamofascists are impinged upon, she’s perfectly OK with restrictions on areas such as free speech, press freedom and self-defence.

Back to the main point though, namely the absolutely toxic effect of these wackos on the case for liberty. Lest anyone bring it up, Ben Franklin warned about giving up essential freedoms for temporary security. The defining characteristic of the civil liberties loons has been their belief that even the loopiest commandments handed down by judicial activists should be defended as though they were Magna Carta. The thing is though, if Judge Moonbats’ rantings have the same status as our ancient rights, then those rights have the status of wacky rulings from bewigged activists, and that makes it easier for the real authoritarians to say ‘the hell with it, let’s start again’.


In the comments, Rop points out that even some on the Left are becoming disenchanted with Liberty's humbuggery.

So Which Is It ?

Talking of Cameron, just about the only thing the Cameroonatics have taken a position on is their belief that the whole straight/gay thing is irrelevant. Even mentioning the issue is enough to have the Nu Tories channelling their inner Ayatollah and issuing the low-fatwas. But what’s with Greg Barker then ?

Right now, Tory High Command is spinning that ol’ Greg is a victim of those pesky homophobes. Except take away the whole gay thing and what are you left with ? A guy marries a woman, then decides he’d rather have sex with someone else and does a runner. Classy!

OK, if you think the fact a bloke lacks integrity in his personal life is irrelevant to his professional life, then this won’t bother you, but if you do, then it should. To put it another way, the Cameroonatics demand that we ignore Barker’s homosexuality, but we shouldn’t think badly of him for cheating on his wife ‘cause, hey, he’s gay.

Y’know, a guy could easily think Opus Dave just say whatever’s most convenient at the time.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

First Class Ticket To Irrelevance

British Airways have finally backed down in the Great Cross Row Of 2006. I’m guessing that they decided that if even the Church of England thought it was safe to come out against them, they must really be in trouble.

Not to say that I don’t understand why companies are reluctant to have staff advertise their adherence to various worldviews, but in so far as BA is perfectly OK with their staff wearing Islamic regalia, Christians would be justified in feeling a little victimised (although, obviously, nervous travellers could be forgiven for worrying about the combination of Christians and air travel, what with the Jesus freaks flying into buildings so often).

In case you’re still wondering, BA’s excuse for allowing Islamopaths to parade round dressed as Bin Laden, while freaking over a cross the size of a 5p coin, is simply that crosses can be concealed while hijacker suits can’t. As excuses go, this makes ‘the dog ate my homework’ sound positively inspired. Doubtless, the Kool Aid drinkers are even now penning long essays to explain why this issue is very complex.

There are a couple of important points here. The first is that BA have been forced to back down by a genuine grass roots campaign. True, Labour pols soon jumped aboard the bandwagon, but – to put it mildly- these are the type of people who are not normally enraged by this sort of thing. Ditto, the MSM. Nope, it was a genuine sense of outrage amongst the public that forced BA to back down. We’d never have found out about the case in the first place without the resolution of Nadia Eweida herself (oh, and by the way Libs, taking on a massive multi-national that pays your mortgage is a hell of a lot closer to real courage than using an Arts Council grant to paint pictures of Bush as Hitler). Then there are the people who rallied to her cause. Folks like these guys and many others. No wimpy calls for government action there, nope, people simply decided that BA was not the type of company they wanted to deal with. So much for ‘political disengagement’ – the public are interested in politics, it's politicians they don't like.

That’s point two. While Nu Lab pols were taking mighty leaps onto the band wagon, you-know-who was conspicuous by his absence. Hey, wasn’t the whole excuse for Cameron his alleged political genius ? Here’s an easy score, but instead he’s stayed hiding in the closet, presumably so as to avoid alienating the ‘pro-discriminating against Christians’ demographic. See, we keep getting told that Cameron comes out with Liberal lunacy as a short-term political measure, but then when we get cases like this where BA’s behaviour is too outrageous even for Nu Lab, Cameron is still AWOL. It’s not the politics – Cameron really does see nothing wrong in discriminating against Christians. Yet Tories or no Tories, the Right won the argument. That’s the thing, the Tories aren’t just gutless, they’re also irrelevant.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Who’ve Have Thunk It ?

The BBC(!) has an interesting article on one of the first examples of Liberal social policy:

Q Camp was a utopian experiment which tried to get troubled boys to operate a self-governing community in the middle of the countryside...

Staff and boys lived in the most primitive conditions, in ramshackle wooden huts without windows or sanitation. A Probation Service inspector described the camp as "dirty and dismal" in one report. She said the sleeping huts filled her with "horror" and the beds "looked grimy".

Work was shared, but the youngsters weren't compelled to lift a finger. A camp council of staff and boys imposed what little discipline there was. There was also a school but attendance was voluntary and the school hut was set on fire on several occasions.

It was Mr Barron's belief that the young boys should not be told what to do. Smashed windows remained unfixed and obscenities were left daubed on walls because he believed it was better to leave the jobs until the boys responsible agreed to do them. They rarely did.
But the sting is in the tail:

So was it a failure? The Q Camp probably only got away with it for so long because in the middle of a war, and a manpower shortage, the authorities were glad to find anyone prepared to take on difficult children.

But in its determination to move away from the authoritarian model of the approved schools, it anticipated many of the ideas on residential childcare that became common in later decades.

Many of those involved went on to become senior and influential in their field.
As if we ever doubted it.

It takes more than complete failure to derail Loony Left ideas. That’s why we get reports like this from modern Britain:

A much stricter behaviour code was introduced that bought radical changes, says Mrs Edwards, whose educational background centres on inclusions and special needs.

"It's very much about back to basics and zero tolerance, bringing back rules and clear boundaries, rewards and consequences that are consistently carried out," she says.
Really ? Having structure and standards improves a school ?

Seriously, whatever will the Left think of next ? Does anyone who isn’t a) an educrat, or b) David Cameron ever not think that maintenance of good order was a basic requirement for successful education ?

Patrician Snob Embraces Patrician Snob Shocker!

You have to see the funny side of Call Me Dave’s embrace of Toynbeeism. Well, not so much the Tories gobbling down another slug of Kool Aid so much as the reaction from the libertarian wing of the Right. They’re shocked – shocked! – that Call Me Dave could stick two fingers up to a huge group of Conservatives.


Short of personally delivering a sack of horse manure, David Cameron could hardly have done more to express his contempt for social conservatives. I wonder how many of the people who yammered on about ‘theocons’ are amongst those libertarians now professing disgust at Cameron’s latest attempt to purge rightists?

Don’t Mention The….

The BBC carries an article on the unusual success of Iceland. The trouble for the BBC is that Iceland’s success comes from pretty much doing the exact opposite of everything the BBC has ever believed:

In the late 1980s, it was a highly-regulated country and its prosperity depended on the fishing industry. Reforms in the 1990s resulted in the deregulation of the economy and banks, opening up the financial markets and allowing the sector to expand rapidly. Its economy is now dominated by services.

"In the mid-90s Iceland still had a relatively raw economy," says Neil Prothero, economist with the Economist Intelligence Unit. "The reforms allowed the financial sector to expand rapidly, this has encouraged a strong entrepreneurial spirit in the country."
Ah yes. So, deregulation helps the economy prosper.

Because it is remote from the rest of Europe, Icelanders are encouraged to look outside their own country.
Or, to put it another way, there’s no need to be ‘at the heart of Europe’ (in any sense) to prosper in international trade.

But that’s not the biggest thing:

It is part of a strong Icelandic national identity to feel you are a match for the rest of the world, despite the size of the nation…

Because you feel you are far away you make an extra effort to take part in the rest of the world, but you maintain a strong sense of home," says Ms Birgisdottir. "There is always an umbilical cord to Iceland. We are proud of who we are….

There is a strong nationalist movement in Iceland but it not denounced like other movements in other countries.
Call it what you want. National pride. A sense of community. Unapologetic partriotism. Whatever, but it the one thing that enrages Leftists more than any other. In Britain we have the have the cultural cringe, open borders and the inevitable product, balkanisation, all cheered on by the BBC. So now Auntie penning paeans of praise to a country that’s rejected exactly the kind of multi-culti nonsense that the BBC treats as holy writ. Anyone know what ‘chutzpah’ is in Icelandic ?

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Pondscum Wars II

We’re saved! Once again fulfilling it’s remit to provide a collective response to issues too big for individual countries to handle, the EU has locked onto the vital issue of….video games. Yes, indeed. The European Commissioner for 'Justice, Freedom and Security' (motto: ‘pick any two’) Franco Frattini has decided urgent action must be taken to suppress ‘obscene’ video games (for the children, natch). And what constitutes an obscene video game ? Well, as far as I can tell, the definition reads something like ‘anything Franco doesn’t like’

Doncha’ just luv it ? It’s another example of how the ‘baby boomers’ have not only become their parents, they’ve actually turned out far worse. Granddad is right: back in the day they did have standards – as in objective measures of whether or not something was obscene. Now we’ve got flatulent Eurotrash lounging round their publicly-funded offices trying to use the law to crush anything which doesn’t meet with their approval.

Liberals often posture as defenders of artistic freedom in the face of ruthless capitalism, well, now we have the worst of both worlds: the artistic freedom of a multi-billion pound industry being crushed for no better reason than that a degenerate exemplar of our new aristocracy has taken against the industry. Somehow, I see him losing a lot of votes over this…but wait: he doesn’t need to bother with the whole ‘votes’ thing. In common with the rest of The EU pond scum, he doesn’t need to bother with actual voters. Instead, he’ll continue to use his position to try and push through repressive legislation insulated from any kind of accountability at all. Now, that’s obscene.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

The Kool Aid Ain't Working Anymore

Uh oh...looks like the MSM's wall of noise just ain't cutting it anymore. They can yammer all they want about a Religion of Peace, but the truth is getting out.

Who Could Argue With A Record Like That ?

Providing the latest evidence of the political classes' determination to rebrand themselves as a sub-branch of the media, Princess Tony has announced the government will be employing 'super nannies' to help problem families. Yep, the billion of pounds we already spend each year on medicalising bad behaviour has been a fiasco, but this time they've got it right.

Well, OK, Libs - if the state does such a five-star job of raising kids, let's see what happens to those who've had the most exposure to the state's theories on child rearing. Look at what happens to kids in care, and say 'what the government did for them, it can do for eveyone's kids'.

Monday, November 20, 2006

OK, You Win, Libs (Part II)

You know how we keep getting told that the Tory A-lister aren’t a bunch of hopelessly unqualified victimhood hustlers, nope, they’re whizkid bizness people ? Personally, I’ve never been sure of exactly why flacking for Big Pharma (to choose an example completely at random) necessarily qualifies you to send the country to war, but OK, I give up. Yes, Liberals, I admit it, you can always spot a good politician because they’re good at business.

OK, You Win, Libs (Part I)

The Libs want to redefine paedophilia – but don’t call them soft on perverts. Dyfed-Powys chief Terry Grange claims the law is a ‘grey area’. In so far as the law outlaws sex with under-16s, it’s hard to see how much simpler it could be, but I guess he’s using the phrase in the Liberal sense of ‘grey area’ i.e. ‘perfectly clear, but we wish it wasn’t’.

Still, it’s not totally idiotic. There really is a different pathology between those who seek sex with children, and those who seek to prey on teenagers. That’s not enough to justify buying into the Libs’ latest PC drivel except for one thing. If we’re not allowed to call those who prey on adolescent boys ‘paedophiles’, then that robs the Left of their main charge against the then-Cardinal Ratzenburger. After all, the ‘paedo Priests’ almost exclusively targeted teenage boys, so I guess the Liberal’s charge must be that the Catholic Church was not zealous enough in rooting out gay priests, right ?

Of course, all this leads on to a further speculation. If a network of predatory homosexuals operating in the Catholic Church for decades suggests the Church is corrupt, what does it say for gay culture ? Motes and beams, fatty!

That Teach ‘Em

It’s bad enough hearing Liberals pretend to applaud the teenagers who chased down a predator when you just know that in any less clear cut case they’d be busily whining about vigilantism, but let’s just consider what the final result was of these brave lads tracking down a potentially armed, and certainly dangerous, scumbag.

Ah yes. Just under six years. What kind of 'life' are we talking here ? Dog years ? It’s never a good sign when the judge feels the need to put in a plea in mitigation. Hey, these folks are notorious for pulling laws out of thin air, but now the system demands he give a savage a slap on the wrist, suddenly he’s Captain Jobsworth ? Hell, the judicary may as well go the whole way and just mail the lads a turd in a bag.

A vote of thanks too for the femiloons. This is what I was on about before. Here we have a code one: WARNING! WARNING! Predator identified! But no: they’re too busy trying to broaden the definition of the offence so they can charge the lads as accessories (‘after all, they’re male, so was the attacker. That can’t be a coincidence’)

But who let’s these guidelines go through in the first place ? I say again: ’checks and balances’ is supposed to work both ways. In so far as you could pick fifty names out of the phone book and not find five who believe this is the right sentence, Parliament has failed utterly to represent the views of the public here. It’s the yin to the yang of MPs who want to regulate everything in the whole world – here’s a job they should be doing, but they’ve let the courts go bananas. They were probably busy passing the Toothbrush Regulatory Act 2006.

Sir Elton Comes Out

Sir Elton’s been babbling again. He wants religion banned.

To be sure, Sir Elton employs the traditional insane qualifier. He’s not against ‘religion’ so much as ‘organised religion’. Hey, as Ann Coulter would say, there’re loads of religions with thousands of sects. If none of them float your boat, it’s probably not the form of organisation that’s the problem.

Nope, away with these stupid euphemisms. We know these people hate Christianity, all Fat Reg has done is come out and say so in public. Naturally, Sir Elton’s call to abolish religious freedom has provoked a firestorm of criticism from moderate gays, human rights activists and the Tories. And when I say ‘firestorm’ I mean a complete lack of condemnation, although I do understand twenty Bishops have demanded he be arrested for incitement.

Not really.

As ever, the door only swings one way. You have one guy handing out leaflets out side a Pink Wedge rally and he gets busted for causing ‘fear, alarm and distress’ to the thousands of attendees - which doesn’t exactly undermine the gay stereotype.

Still, this does show into sharp relief the harassment of the Glasgow firefighters. Liberal managers wanted to use public servants to endorse the rantings of a group of people opposed to freedom of conscience, and the guys who refused to take part are the bigots ? Hello ?

See, this is what I was saying. This isn’t some touchy-feely debate about ‘tolerance’ and the like. Sir Elton is, well, Sir Elton, filthy rich A-list celeb knight of the realm. What else does he want ? No, there’s plenty of tolerance there but what these guys want is something quite different.

The Pink Wedge isn’t pushing some uncontentious call for mutual respect. They are completely opposed to both the specifics of religion and traditional morality, and the more general idea of freedom of conscience. If they had their way, Britain would be a very different country, but we’re not allowed to discuss what they believe. Instead, they get to denounce Britain, while calling their critics 'bigots'. In every sense, they are the perfect pin-up boys for modern Liberalism

Friday, November 17, 2006

Official: No Alligators In Sewers

Good news ladies: you can now drink 26 Bacardi and cokes free from the worry that you might be exposed to some kind of mind-altering substance. There’s no evidence of vast phalanxes of perverts stalking women, ruffies in hand. It turns out that most of the women who think they’ve been exposed to date-rape drugs have actually just been blitzed out of their minds. We’re still waiting on the official word on whether too long on the sunbed can fry your internal organs.

You know, you could keep a whole blog going just covering cases of Leftists breathlessly reporting stuff their granny could have told them. Let's sum up today's lesson: don’t get too wasted with strange men around, otherwise bad things could happen. But no. We live in the era of femilunacy, whence any suggestion that young ladies would be best advised not to smoke immediately after dousing themselves in petrol is exactly the same as Chinese foot binding. It was bad enough when the femiloons were encouraging any female in a management position to model herself on Nero, but at least that didn’t lead them to go home with Jack the Ripper.

In so far as ‘ladette’ culture is just another case of the femiloons taking all the flaws of male culture and exaggerating them to the point of absurdity, it would just be business as usual, without the Phantom Pharmo-Pervs. These shadowy figures are the perfect bogeymen for femiloons. Grandma only wanted you to avoid leaving with any strange men, but now the femiloons warn you that a moment’s inattention and you could be turned into a mindless sex slave. Best to play it safe and avoid all men, hey ?

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, doubtless formed to counter the lies of Women For Rape, has branded the report ‘unhelpful’. I’ll say. The idea of a nation of date rape drug drink spikers, fits perfectly into the femiloon’s paradigm of unending sex war, as exemplified by the supposed billions of unreported rapes every week. Of course, if you were wanting to do something off the wall like, oh I don’t know, prevent women being raped, it would be useful to get the message out to them that becoming a victim doesn’t require sinister pharmo-pervs with exotic pills, simply drinking to excess can render a woman vulnerable.

Then again, who’s to say the femiloons are really against rape anyway ? Not only is it a nice wedge issue for them, but the unhinged rantings about all men being rapists just emphasises their comparative lack of outrage over the demographic that more than any other is responsible for rape, namely rapists.

Sentences for rape, in common with every other crime, have plunged. But where are the femiloons ? Sure, they’ll describe just about every disappointment a women could face as ‘practically the same as rape’ and they call for rape trials to pick up a few tips from the Witchfinder General (‘if the axe bounces off, he’s guilty’), but when it comes to actual, no arguments, predators ? Nope, nothing to see here, move along. Rape’s kind of bad, but apparently not bad enough for the femiloons to break ranks with the rest of the Leftards. That’s why the same people who’ll denounce our supposed epidemic of rapes are happy to see predators let off with less time than Jeffrey Archer served. That’s why they endorse absurd ‘rehabilitation’ schemes carried out by well-paid, beardy-weirdy psychobabblers. That’s why they oppose notification laws that will warn people when a known predator moves into their area. If you want to see people opposed to rape, don’t bother with the ugly boilers trying to define it down to the point where even the Pope could be convicted, check out the Right. We want to make sure that when we nail them, they stay nailed.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Proof: Kirsty Wark Causes Global Warming

Kind of obvious, but wouldn't you like to see the figures for the BBC ?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

File this under 'things only Liberals could say':
Surrey County Council, on behalf of the college, claimed the "strict anti-bullying policy" which was in place when Natashia was attacked "is effective", but also said there were "a number of incidents" of bullying involving the victim.

Monday, November 13, 2006

EU Sluts

Reading this over at EU Ref, I couldn’t help but think of Laban’s post about the British textile industry.

Worst Idea Ever

Impressed though I’ve been with the way Blair has somehow found himself on the right side of the War on Terror, there’s always been a feeling that this owes more to blind luck than anything else. Blair has never managed to articulate anything like a coherent explanation for why he thinks we need to fight. Obviously, he’s hemmed in by the very PC he did so much to promote, but still, claims that Blair ‘gets it’ seem awfully premature. And that’s before you think about his latest brilliant idea.

The big idea behind the Iraq operation was to offer the people of the Middle East a genuine choice other than repressive dictatorship or Islamolunacy. In so far as Syria is in Class A and Iran in Class B, neither has anything to gain and everything to lose from the successful establishment of a democratic Iraq. Hence, why they’ve been going full throttle to strangle it at birth. Blair's apparent failure to understand why Iraq is so vital is one thing, but his belief that the thugs and fanatics can be bought off is indicative of a man utterly failing to grasp the nature of the enemy.

100% Rubbish

It is generally true that while Conservatives have at least a vague idea what the Left believes, Liberals don’t have a clue about Conservatism. For proof of that, consider C4’s ‘100% English’. This was the latest in a long line of programs in which English (always English) people have their DNA tested, producing the revelation that many British people have foreign ancestors.

In case you’re wondering, this is supposed to be devastating for the Right. I understand future programs will debunk global warming sceptics by proving that fire is hot, and counter Christianity by showing that religious people still die.

For the benefit of any hard-of-thinking Liberals, I’ll spell it out: the Right doesn’t support Britain because it believes in a deranged 19th Century view of racial purity. It supports Britain because it believes in British culture, the British way of life and the things that make Britain so, well, British. Like the bald bloke says, you may like it, you may not, but this is where the debate is at, not some insane Liberal caricature of lunatics with genealogy charts.

A Hero For Our Times

Amongst the top 1000 or so annoying things about Liberals is not only their reflexive contempt for Britain and its institutions, but also their insistance that this is proof of their own awe inspiring courage. Look at John Snow. He’s not wearing a poppy. How very radical! Except that’s not enough for him, no, he has to tell us that in doing so, he's bravely battling the forces of oppression, or as he puts it ‘poppy fascism’. Using that phrase while flicking a v-sign towards those who fought actual fascism just shows how far down the rabbit hole the Left has gone.

Reality TV

I don’t want turn this into, but one of his posts shows a truly Hollywoodesque lack of self-awareness. He’s worried about the EU’s attempts to regulate the ‘Net, and more particularly by a Tory MEP’s weasely response to it.

Yep, He’s worried that a Tory politician is proving to be worthless in defending liberty and standing up to the EU. Hello ? Hey, this is a guy who really has all but turned his blog into, but here he is with a perfect exemplar of what they were on about. This is exactly why people don’t trust the Tories, yet A-lister Dale was onboard with all this, right up until it was his ox being gored. It’d be great if the penny’s dropped, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Saxons Baffled As Dane Demands More Geld

Another week, another Class A-list disaster. Not content with being put on the A-list, Ali Miraj has demanded he be given a safe seat in Parliament, and no, none of your pesky ‘target seats’ will do. He wants an ‘access all areas’ pass and he wants it now! And why does he have this feeling of entitlement ? Well, he’s already contested a no-hoper and a marginal, he’s on a couple of Party committees and, no kidding, he’s got ‘professional experience as a Chartered Accountant.’

Yep: Mr Diversity is claiming he should be selected because he’s yet another Party hack. Huh ? If you want to see the sheer moral bankruptcy of the whole race hustling thing summed up, this is it: a yuppie scum accountant claiming he represents an under-represented demographic. When oh when will thirty-something Metropolitan professionals have a voice in this country ?

Needless to say, the Great Man conforms exactly to the stereotype of the Cameroonatic, in that he’s ticked every box but hasn’t signed anything. His CV isn’t just perfect, it’s perfectly sterile. You just know if you asked him for the time, he’d tell you it was ‘too early to say’. Indeed, he sums up perfectly what’s wrong with the Cameron Party when he claims he should become an MP because he’s fulfilled all the criteria. Nothing about a desire to serve, no ideology to push, nope – he’s collected all the tokens, so now he wants the free toy.

In his own way, Miraj sums exactly where British politics has gone wrong. He has an impressive record of hackery, but what else ? Why exactly should he be placed in a position of power over his fellow citizens ? For that matter what does he want to be an MP for ? All that need be said about his principals is that he quotes ‘family friends’ suggesting he’d have been better off in the Labour Party. Somehow, I can’t see many people suggesting to a young Margaret Roberts that she should try Labour.

But there’s something more. Let’s flip this round. Native Britons are constantly being harried over their use of ‘insensitive language’, but here’s a guy who’s come out and called the British Right racists. Never mind that’s it’s a gift to the Left he claims to oppose, surely the yin to the yang of paranoia about racism is that people who use bogus charges of racism should also face opprobrium ? After all, what his position boils down to is a charge that them pesky whites can’t be trusted to deal fairly with people. Racist, much ? In so far as any Right winger who suggests that multi-culturalism hasn’t brought about a new Golden Age is accused of being a BNP sympathiser, what’s with a Tory A-lister who sounds like he’s recruiting for Al-Quaida ?

It takes a certain degree of chutzpah for Miraj to complain about the ethnic angle, when that is his main qualification for the A-list in the first place. Take that away and what we’re left with is another party hack, but there’s a wider issue here. The A-list was justified as the Tory’s attempts to reach out to the supposedly disenfranchised and underrepresented. Now it turns out that the Tories’ idea of an underrepresented group is chartered accountants. This isn’t a one-off, take the example of House of Dumb heroine Margo James, millionaire ex-City flack and now supposed representative of ‘female games teachers’ in Blackpool.

For all the rhetoric, the only people the Tories appear to have ‘reached out’ to are the already privileged and connected. Far from being an attempt to broaden the Party’s demographics, the A-List has been used to pack it with Cameron Clones – but multi-coloured, omni-sexual ones! Hence why the A-list has more councillors from Kensington & Chelsea on it than from the whole of North-West England plus Yorkshire. That wouldn’t matter so much if the Party was committed to a policy of strict meritocracy, but for a group of people who claim to be obsessed with creating a party that looks like Britain, it does ram the point home.

Thursday, November 09, 2006


It turns out airlines can profile after all. Not polar explorers returning home after a seven hour holiday, of course - that'd be stupid. No, it's a far more sinister pattern of behavior they're looking for.

Hey - I don't know about you guys, but I'm feeling alientated. Not to say appalled, agitated and angry. It's taking all my self-control not to strap explosives to myself and blow up a bus.

Actually, I am kind of teed off. You simply can't make a case for this kind of profiling without also making the case for anti-terrorist profiling, yet such is the intellectual death spiral of our culture that we'll treat enemy combatants attempting to destroy an airliner full of people better than Joe Bloke jetting home.


Return Of The Curse Of Call Me Dave Again Part II

Looks like the puffy-faced reptile has done it again. Truly, he is the closest British politics has to an Angel of Death. Just as he completes his purging of social conservatives from the Party, even Liberals are starting to admit that maybe all kinds of relationship aren't 'special' after all.

More Very Complex Stuff

It’s a good rule of thumb that when a Liberal claims something is very complex that means he’s been caught bang to rights. As ever, the perfect examplar of this is the BBC.

For the past two years, the BBC has been holding off on reporting on the death of Kriss Donald until they found a way they could write it off as a suicide, albeit doubtless a very complex one. Now, with the conviction of three ‘Asians’, even the BBC recognises the game is up. Hence, the sudden switch to Plan B.

Suddenly, the BBC is thinking deeply about the whole question of ‘racist murder’. Apparently, hate crimes are:
a largely subjective crime - and one which has proved extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt…Trying to unravel the motivation behind a crime is always difficult. Was a kick or a punch in a violent robbery any harder because of the victim's skin colour?.
The funny thing is that this was never a problem back in the day. The BBC justified the grossly disproportionate amount of coverage given to the near simultaneous slayings of Anthony Walker and Richard Whelan, by citing the definitely racial nature of the Walker killing. No trouble there ‘unravelling the motivation’ – and that only days after the slayings, not after a full trial.

What it’s really about is yet another Liberal idiocy running headlong into reality and coming off worst:
Racism was once defined as "prejudice plus power" - a definition which, in a British context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.
To quote one of the commentators at B-BBC, shouldn’t that read ‘in a Marxist context’ The Kriss Donald case throws this kind of rubbish into sharp relief. We’re talking about a hideous, racist killing, so where are our PC guardians of public morals ?

This is the race relations industry exposed. It turns out that they’re just fine with racism after all. All this PC posturing is just a means to push their culturally Marxist agenda. Those crimes which help this agenda get the full hit, those that don’t disappear down the memory hole, and if they’re too big to fit, they get the BBC explaining that the case is very complex.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Poetry Is Evil

Liberals are pretending to be outraged again, so I guess that means someone’s committed a crime against PC. Ah yes. A 'racist' poem.

Now that’s not a phrase you hear every day.

Liberals are so busy being outraged that they haven’t got round to saying why exactly it’s racist. True, it mentions Pakistanis, but not in a specifically racial way (in fact, there are US versions that mention Mexicans). The author isn’t criticising Pakistanis, he criticising an immigration system that involves throwing money at any idiot who can make it to Heathrow. The poem would work just fine if it mentioned Martians.

Needless to say, in so far as the girly hysteria was entirely predictable, the Tory concerned must have rocks for brains to get caught up in this. But hang on a mo’ – what’s with the leadership’s sudden chorus of ‘who let her in ?’. She was an A-Lister, a Grade A, Cameron-Approved, Fast-Track Superwoman, ready to be foisted on some innocent constituency. What does that say about Cameron’s Cloning Facility ?

Nevertheless, there is something that sticks in the throat hearing the party of Jenny Tonge and Chris Davis denounce racism. Sure they were demoted, but they still kept their jobs. Come to think of it, it’s a double whammy. After all, if everyone has the right to move to Britain then, hey, surely no one can object to the Jews moving to Palestine ? After all, it’s not like they expect Hamas to give them a free house, so what’s the Liberal Scumocrats’ real beef ?

But there’s something deeper here. The charge against the poem is that by mocking our train wreck immigration system, it is, by definition, racist. That’s what all parties are tacitly endorsing when they compete to come up with the most hysterical denunciation. So think that one over. Now, it’s not only racist to oppose open borders immigration, it’s racist to oppose open wallet immigration too. Or, to put it another way, if you don’t believe everyone on the planet has the right to fly to Britain and demand we give them a boat load of cash, the mainstream parties think you’re racist scum.

Hey, if nothing else, could the MSM stop referring to those of us who oppose current immigration policy as ‘extremists’, at least until we get some actual evidence that a majority of people outside the Westminster Village support our ‘everyone welcome’ policy ? Right now, I’m thinking the fact none of the mainstream parties will admit to even supporting ‘open borders’ kind of suggests that critics of this policy can’t be too fringe after all.

In so far as there is now no mainstream party that doesn’t think we should greet immigrants with open wallets, this is something of a gift to the BNP. Of course, Liberals will want to denounce Nasty Nick’s Party, but how can they ? If they’re going to use up all the rhetoric on people who don’t think we should be letting former Rwandan militia men into the country, what words do they have left for people who really do think DNA is destiny ?

Sunday, November 05, 2006

They're Asking For It

Joking apart, it looks like the Left really has finally mustered a response to the Mad Mullah of Sydney’s defence of gang rape. Leading off is Aussie Lefty Suzanne Bassette, with a nice attempt at deflection.

Of course, this line of argument doesn’t even stand up on its own merits. People who don’t have 5-lever deadlocks and window locks are more likely to get burgled than people who do, but that doesn’t mean they made the burglars rob them. But even to engage with that argument is to let the Islamopaths off the hook.

Liberals have tried to blur the issue by claiming that the Mad Mullah was talking about immodest dress and the like. Hardly – let’s hear from the alleged man himself:
If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?

The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.
If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened.
That's my emphasis by the way. No room for misquote there – and no generalised references to skimpy clothing either. Women who fail to wear a specifically Islamic piece of regalia deserve to be raped. A woman can –literally – dress like a nun, but she’s still a valid target to an Islamopath.

I’ll take this slow, just in case any Liberals are reading. This guy isn’t analogues to some geriatric judge explaining that women who wear short skirts are ‘asking for it’. He’s not stating that it would be imprudent or dangerous for a woman to dress immodestly, he’s claiming that it’s OK to rape all Infidel women. Come to think of it, things aren’t looking too good for those ‘moderate Muslims’ who Liberals claim are so thick on the ground (not that that doesn’t mean that the choice to wear the veil isn’t entirely voluntary).

All of which neatly debunks the Left’s other angle of attack, namely the claim that Islamopaths are the real victims here. Hey, if members of a death cult believing they have the right to rape non-members doesn’t strike Liberals as being something worth criticising, just what are they waiting for ?

Voting With His Backside

I always enjoy US campaign season. There’s a vibrancy and commitment to the whole thing that makes a refreshing change from the Westminister Village’s incestuous posturefests.

Still, not everyone likes American style. Tory A-Lister Iain Dale is just appalledappalled I tell you – by Vernon Roberts’s ad. Not that he actually gets round to telling us why. Like we can’t guess. See, that’s strike one there. Does Iain Dale really think the rest of us are too stoopid to guess what’s really motivating him ?

Then there’s the humbuggery of it all. Iain Dale and the rest of the Pink Wedge spent years yammering about ‘tolerance’, but now they’ve got the whip hand, anyone who doesn’t like Kylie gets the extra-special snark with added snark.

But let’s not let the superficial humbuggery of ID’s position blind us to the deeper humbug. The Pink Wedge claims gays need to be represented by gays but how does that work ? In a PR-based system you could indeed have ‘gay MPs’, ‘black MPs’ or even ‘RPG geek MPs’, but in a constituency-based system the rest of the voters in any given place are quite within their rights to say ‘well, who’s representing us then’ ?

This is not a problem if we’re just talking about an MP who nails blokes as a hobby, as it were, but here’s Iain Dale taking against Vernon Roberts precisely because of his views on you-know-what. His sexuality isn’t a side-issue, it’s the driver of his views here. What confidence can, say, social conservatives or the religious have in the prospect of being represented by Dale ?

Thursday, November 02, 2006

The Litmus Test

They took some time, but the Left has finally managed to muster a response to the Mad Mufti of Sydney’s defence of gang rape. Here’s Glenys Kinnock:
We know Muslims are Neanderthal in their attitudes, but it is absolutely terrifying that Sheik Hilali can fly in the face of what we have worked and fought for, to establish equal opportunities and rights for women.

He cannot strut around saying things like that.
Liberal Democrat MEP leader Chris Davies said: "It looks like it is time for a ride back to the 7th Century on the Muslim time machine, to the golden age of women's rights and opportunities.
While the Treason Party’s Hampshire MEP Chris Huhne offers this thought:
With this statement Muslims are taking the world back decades to an age where women had few if any rights or opportunities.
No, no: just kidding. All the above statements were made about UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom, when he joked about women cleaning behind the fridge. Could there be a better metric for the degeneracy of modern Liberalism than the contrast between the hysteria that greeted Bloom’s joke and the deafening silence when faced with a guy who defends gang rape ?

Hey, it’s not even as if the Left doesn’t have a history of going overboard when discussing rape. DSD points out just how loony some Leftys can be, but now we have someone who’s as bad as they always said men were ? ‘This office is now closed. Please call again after Hell freezes over’.

FrontPage magazine reminds us just how blatantly the Left has covered for Islamofascist rapists. Well, of course they have. The whole of the Liberal worldview is based on the idea that everything is infinitely malleable, that the only true evil is believing in evil. Now, they’re faced with absolute barbarism. What can all their finger in the air intellectualism avail them now ?

The central belief of modern Liberalism is that we have reached a point in human history where 2+2 can equal 5, if only we give all the power in the world to really smart people like them. Sooner or later, that type of thinking always leads to disaster, but nothing throws it into sharp relief like absolute savagery. The Islamopaths believe they have a, literally, God-given right to rape Infidel women. What middle ground do the Left think we should find with feral predators ? How should we ‘reach out’ to perverted thugs ?

Liberals have no answer to these questions because all Liberal’s supposed sophistication amounts to is a polysyllabic form of moral nihilism and self-hatred. The people hunting feral savages are as bad as the savages themselves. Western civilisation is as bad as an ideology that calls for the rape of unbelievers. Everything is the same as everything else, except when the West is worse.

Politics is full of grey areas where ideology and reality meet head-on, where compromises must be made and the best is the enemy of the good. This isn’t one of them. We’re talking about gang rape here, but the Left’s hoping the issue goes away. This is the state of modern Liberalism.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

A Woman’s Right To Choose

Who’d have thunk it ? So when all those Liberals were writing about how a women should be allowed to wear what she wants, they were talking about a women who wasn’t allowed to wear what she wanted. Who says Libs have no sense of irony ?

It don’t get any easier than this. The Islamopaths claimed that women actually wanted to wander round in tents, but it turns out they can’t even front up one happy camper without invoking Islamic law and all that that implies.

There’s a lesson to be learned here. How can I put this ? Ah yes, the Right was right. Again. The Left were, at best, duped by misogynistic thugs. Hey – it could happen to anyone (but it seems to happen to them a lot). Let’s leave aside the question of whether professional jounalists have any responsibility to carry out ‘due diligence’ and just ask where’s the follow-up ? Liberals moralise about the Right all day, but now they’ve been caught carrying water for a bunch of savages, what do they say ? Ah no, down the memory hole it goes – and takes the last shreds of their moral authority with it.

Mysteries Of Our Time

Well, OK, if it’s not slanted, how come we never hear of groups of right-wingers coming out in support ?

Arsonists Warn Of Dangers To Firemen

In case you’ve missed the BBC’s 24-7 coverage, the SNP and Plaid Cymru a.k.a. the Celtard Twins have taken time out from proving that cancer is caused by the English to call for an inquiry into the Iraq war, ‘cause y’know, if it had been handled differently, they’d have been right behind it. Apparently, they support the type of nationalism which involves abasing yourself before Third World lunatics. Maybe we should point out that some of the soldiers being killed are English ?

Needless to say, the Treason Party is right behind them. It really is more than flesh and blood should have to bear seeing a bunch of skanky, snivelling, socialist, surrender weasels break off from five years doing all but camping outside the US Embassy chanting ‘Bin Laden is gonna win!’ to claim that they’re worried about how the war’s being fought.

In any sane world these freaks taking out an onion for our fighting men would be enough to score them the rosette for ‘Sleaziest in Show’, but now we’re in the Call Me Dave dimension and the Tories are also backing calls for an inquiry. Not that they’re standing shoulder to shoulder with the moonbats, no sir, they just want to review the war. Well, Tories, you’re in luck – there happens to be a 646 strong committee already in place in central London, ready to review how things are going. Hell, I’ll even throw in a topic to get them started: the lousy armour on British vehicles, as documented extensively over here.

But no, the Tories have bent over backwards not to discuss the war in the house. It’s not even as if these equipment problems are the result of tough choices. There’s plenty of money for the European Rapid Reaction Force, also known Les Corps de l'El├ęphant Blanc. But pointing that out might reopen Tory divisions over Europe, so it’s much safer to let the troops die, while claiming you want lessons to be learned just as soon as they become moot.

Meanwhile, Nu Lab claims this sort of thing demoralises the troops, as opposed to their policy of constant witch hunts for war crimes, which enthuses the troops no end. Call it a wild shot in the dark, but I’m guessing the troops have already noticed that their vehicles have the survivability of a Conservative in the Tory Party.

Of course, there is a serious point there. Having pond life like Plaid Cymru and the like stand up in the house and argue for a cut and run strategy can’t help but strengthen the enemy. It’s Bin Laden’s weak horse all over again. The trouble is that acknowledging that would require Labour to put the war in its proper context, and this they have refused to do. Instead, throughout the war Labour have acted as though the invasion of Iraq was approved on its own merits, instead of as a strategic move in the wider war on Islamofascism. Not only has this weakened support for the war amongst some people who should be strong supporters, but it’s left the way open for conspiracy nuts, for whom everything goes back to pointy-nosed fellows with silly hats.

Nu Labour’s reluctance to call the enemy what they are is all of a part with their reluctance to give the troops the equipment they need or protect them from legal harassment. To use a Clintonism, they went to war but they didn’t inhale.

This is exactly why the House should be holding the Executive to account, but instead the opposition is off in Neverland. The Treason Party and their Celtard mates are trying to find new ways to shout ‘surrender now’! And the Conservatives ? The Party of Churchill and Thatcher is desperately triangulating on the question of whether we should grovel to murderous savages. I don’t think it’s all that talk of inadequate air assets that explains why the terrorists feel so confident.