Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Las Mancs

Who'd have guessed that the Super Casino would be going to Manchester ? Apparently, the selection committee had to consider issues such as the influence of organised crime, drug abuse and violence, but they decided that these problems were outweighed by other points in Manchester's favour.

Steyn Quote D'Jour

Even better, it's about the smartest man ever:
[David Cameron's] also living in a country whose major cities have been hollowed out by Islamist cells. Nevertheless, as England decays into Somalia with chip shops, taxing the chip shops is the Conservatives' priority.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Govt Admits Reform Was Huge, Misdirected Failure

That'll be the day.

Cobbett is bang on here. A huge bureaucracy has been created, ultimately paid for by Joe Public, yet by the FSA's own account, standards are still appalling in the financial services industry. Hmmm....sounds like the FSA needs massive reform - but don't hold your breath waiting for that either.

Actually, of course, the FSA hasn't been able to find any actual evidence of malpractice, far less consumer detriment, in its industry. The FSA's indictment, such as it is, revolves around the claim that 'two-thirds of the mortgage lenders it sampled did not have satisfactory processes in place'. Not only that, but processes tended to be less robust in smaller operations.

Well, I don't know about you, but I was shocked - shocked! - to find out that John Smith's Mortgage Brokerage has less robust systems than the Halifax. Who'd have thunk it ? Still, I dunno, it seems kind of.... indirect somehow. If only there was some more obvious way to check the quality of John's advice ?

What it all boils down to is time-serving public sector zombies berating the productive sector for not being having the kind of mindless worship of paperwork and process that has made the parasite sector what it is today. You think banks are bad now, wait till they start working as cheaply and efficiently as the NHS.

Still, the FSA is at least being true to its roots as a product of the blood-sucking sector. What are we to make of the other participants in the pile-on, organisations such as the Citizen's Advice and other consumer groups....

Hold it right there. I happen to think that if the FSA was kicked out of the trough, the public would immediately benefit from not having to fund thousands of overpaid leeches, but will any 'consumer association' ever say that ? For that matter, would the MSM ever refer to any organisation formed to push that world view as a 'consumer association'. Not in this lifetime. The designation 'consumer association' is reserved for Liberal astroturf organisations pushing Big Government. Maybe there's a compelling case for socialism, but if there is, why do these people need to hide what they're about under weaselly designations like 'consumer group' ?

Nope, any time an alleged consumer group opens its trap, you know you're going to get made-over Marxism and Big Government boosterism wrapped in fluffy bunny rhetoric about 'protecting the consumer'. For proof of that, look at their comments this time round. They're worried that banks may be lending money to people who can't repay it (which makes no sense until you remember that Liberals think business is like the public sector in that the more money you waste, the more you get).

OK then Libs, you win: from now on banks won't be allowed to victimise the working classes by offering them services. Only middle-class professionals with golf club memberships will be allowed to use banks. But I hear someone whining about 'financial exclusion' ? Why, yes, I believe I do.

So, in summary, banks are evil for lending to people who aren't even doctors or lawyers, but they're also evil for not lending to these people. But don't let that convince you that 'consumer groups' are anything less than disinterested defenders of the public good.

As I Was Saying…

Spookily enough, the topics of the last two posts kind of feed into a comment I left earlier at Laban’s place. It was in the comments to this post where someone asked if people would be so worried about the fall of Christianity if there wasn’t a well-known peaceful religion clawing at the door of western civilisation, ready to replace it.

The simple answer is that nature abhors a vacuum. There’s no either/or there. Islam is an opportunistic infection, taking advantage of a body already rotted by Liberalism. Let’s face it – Islam isn’t advancing through the force of the ideology. Islam teaches that people are slaves to a brutal moon god who demands blind obedience even on the most trivial of things. The closest you get to any kind of hopeful message in Islam is the belief that if you kill enough Infidels, you’ll get an invite to Big Mo’s Whorehouse in the sky.

But what is it faced with ? The Liberal world view is based upon the idea that we are at a unique moment in human history when now, for the first time ever, a civilisation can get by without the family, a shared narrative, a code of honour, objective truth, a sense of consequences or, well, any of the other 871 things the Left sneers at whenever traditional values are mentioned. Apparently, every civilisation that has existed in the past 5000 years has been a ghastly mistake.

Well, now we've got a chance to test that hypothesis. European sophisticates vs deranged savages.


The rise of Islam is the perfect barometer of just how sick our civilisation is, proof positive of the essential hollowness of the Liberal ideal of multicultural, omnisexual intellectuals sitting at pavement cafes, discussing trends in post-modern architecture over the lattes. When our civilisation is less inspiring than the rantings of a sociopathic nonce from the 7th century, we’ve got real problems.

That’ll Leave A Mark

America’s chief (only ?) sane Lib Kirsten Powers sums up exactly what’s so annoying about professional atheists. At least religious nuts claim God’s on their side – these people claim the right to behave like pigs just because.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Very Nuclear Family

Sorry if posts seem even more incoherent than usual, but I’m still coming to terms with being a family man. I mean, I’m still single with no kids, but after reading this post from Iain Dale, I realise that’s no reason to feel left out. After all, if we accept the Dale hypothesis that a family is just whatever random group of individuals happen to be occupying the same post code at the same time, well, I see no reason why people should be allowed to discriminate against monocentric family groups. After all, if critics are going to claim that single people can’t be a family just because a family needs to consist of more than one person, I have one word for them: schizophrenia.

But seriously, don’t think I’m criticising Dale’s post here. It strikes me as at least 1000% more honest than anything from his slippery ‘everything’s special’ leader. The only problem is that Dale doesn’t follow his own logic through to its natural conclusion. As Joe Single, I can see a case for paying relatively over the odds tax-wise to help ensure the next generation get the best start in life, but once we move outside the traditional family structure, what’s the case for subsidising even the most dysfunctional arrangements ? Or, to put it another way, if all lifestyles are equal, how can anyone justify taxing some and subsiding others ?

More profoundly though, what’s with the claim that all lifestyles are equal anyway ? We know that’s not true. The data is in – and has been for ages – some family groups do dramatically better than others. In and of itself, that’s hardly a compelling case for government intervention, except if you’re the type of deranged statist who thinks the government should issue fat licences. Oops.

Hey, how come all types of food aren’t ‘special’ ? Why aren’t Tories claiming that there are many different kinds of ‘healthy’ ? After all, in both cases what we’re talking about here is statistics. There must be plenty of folks still eating a full English breakfast every day well into their 80s, so how come the Tories want to set up their own CID (Cheeseburger Investigation Division) to clamp down on unlicensed kebab dealers, while claiming that kids could be raised by wolves with no harm done ?

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Rush Quote D'Jour

Rush Limbaugh puts his finger on what's wrong even with 'nice' Leftists:

'Having fun at a dream job' was cited by 39% of workers as important, with 17% saying 'making a difference in society' was most important. Thank God it's only 17%. Hitler made a difference.

MSM: Some Extremists More Equal Than Others

Just thinking about a couple of posts over at ATW. Tom Tyler rightly points out the somewhat selective reporting of racial attacks in the MSM. Doubtless, these people would justify this by claiming they have to be sensitive to the possibility of aiding extremist thugs..

Well, OK, Libs. Let’s go with that: media organisations should refrain from reporting that could help the cause of violent lunatics. Except that turns out not to be the Left’s position at all. When the lunatics in question are Islamofasicts – henceforth to be known as 'real thugs' rather than, say, the still-waiting-for-it Islamophobic backlash – any suggestion that the media’s reporting ('all atrocities, all the time') could be helping these lunatics has the MSM cranking the girly hysteria up to 11.

So which is it ? Are the MSM fearless seekers after truth ? Or is responsible reporting all the rage ? Or is it, and I'll admit I’m going out on a limb here, just that they’re a bunch of hacks who’ll report anything – providing it harms Britain.

The Leader They Deserve

Talking of the Tories, Tom Paine passes on a useful insight into what the Party’s bright young things really believe.

I believe the phrase is 'stick a fork in it, it's done'.

Judge, Rope, Scaffold - Some Assembly Required

So, now we know: even people convicted of actual attacks on kids doesn’t count as ‘dangerous’. But hey – how come the judges aren’t yammering about political interference this time ? Whenever it’s suggested that they should be sending more people to jail, the whining’s audible from South Korea. This time, not so much.

But let’s consider what the judges are really doing. It’s so obvious, even Nick Robinson has picked up on it. They are – as these Leftist tools would doubtless say – sending a message. They want some payback against John Reid, so they’re releasing dangerous predators. Huh ?

Just what kind of amoral degenerate do you have to be to reach the point where giving predators another chance to strike at innocent children in order to make trivial political points strikes you as a good idea ? And should people like that even be on the bench in the first place ?

A vote of thanks too for the Tories, reliably appalling as ever, for jumping onboard this particular bandwagon. No matter how awful you think John Reid is, he can hardly be personally responsible for the lack of prison places. I’d suggest the blame lies with another member of the Scottish Raj, but that’s by the by. In throwing their hand in with a bunch of activist judges seeking to hijack the legal process, the Tories have tacitly accepted one of the most toxic – and anti-Conservative - trends of recent years. Tories allowing short term politics to overrule long-term strategy ? Say it ain’t so!

Coming Back At Ya

Steve’s wondering why religious people should get special exemption from gay rights legislation. Some of us would ask the opposite question. Why should gays get special rights in the first place ?

Sure, these people claim gayness is equivalent to, say, race, but I have six words for them: ‘not one drop of gay blood’. Doesn’t really work, does it ? No one’s talking about checking out someone’s family tree, it’s all about the life they lead. Hey, maybe there’s a genetic element to it, but maybe there’s a genetic element to being obese, or a drunk, or a smoker. No one’s demanding that being a fat chain-smoking hooch jockey is off-limits to debate, nope, it’s only the folks who like to hang out with all the boys who are a protected species.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

So, Who Is Dangerous Then ?

Not that the Left is weak on sexual predators or anything. He'd have had more chance of time if he'd have gobbed a traffic warden.

Stories That Are Never As Interesting As The Headline Suggests

Mind you, you can never have enough of these movies.

Arrogance Or Delusion ?

Don’t laugh, but the Tories have decided to go after votes in the North. This, lest we forget, from the party whose list of preferred candidates – supposedly designed to produce a ‘party that looks like Britain’ – managed to include more councilors from Kensington and Chelsea than from the whole North-West plus Yorkshire. Still, at least they’re strong in the North-East. Oopsie – looks like not only do they have to parachute in candidates but …..well, you know. Not that all this implies any kind of contempt for Viz country. No, siree. Just how STOOPID do they think we are ?

Nice Shot!

The Reptile gives a righteous kicking to Richard Gott, ex-KGB agent and current idiot. It's all good, but don't miss the zinger he passes on in the last paragraph.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

The Case Against An English Parliament

Hey, at least when the Scots soak us, there’s a statistical risk the money will be spent on stuff like cancer drugs or education. Our fellow Englishmen have different priorities.

The Spoils System Of Child Care

Reading this post over at ATW I finally put my finger on what it is that so utterly nauseates me about the gay adoption movement. It’s their sense of entitlement. That’s bad enough when we’re talking about the welfare state, but to hear these people talk about how they’re being unfairly discriminated against by being deprived of their fair share of kids is more than flesh and blood should have to stand.

Back in the day, when it was all green fields round here and you could buy a mansion and still have change of a fiver, the adoption system was run for the benefit of the kids, but not anymore: now, successful agencies with great records for placing kids are being forced out of existence for depriving you-know-who of their rightful share of the spoils. Could there be a better example of the narcissism and shamelessness of the Pink Wedge ?

Bad News: We're All Crazy (Again)

Uh oh – looks like an old friend is back: the Pathological Conservative. Really, Liberals wax indignant about the supposed Conservative ‘War on Science’ but just how much respect should the Right have for people prepared to present any old garbage as science, providing it slimes the Right ?

Actually, great though the takedown of that study is, all I needed to know was that it featured two of the best markers for junk science, namely the claim that Stalin was actually right-wing, and reference to the work of that old Marxist fraud Adorno. Absurd twisting of definitions and blind acceptance of nonsensical rubbish are never a good basis for research.

This is not some obscure scientific eccentricity either. There’s the obvious point that folks like this are scoring swag from the taxpayer to produce semi-literate screeds denouncing Conservatives, but it goes a little deeper than that. Let’s leave aside any speculations on how Liberals think we should treat the disease of Conservatism, and just consider one specific area of policy. Right now, the same level of genius which produces work like this, is also driving government policy on crime and punishment. Or, to put it another way, the integrity-free hacks who produce reams of garbage proving Rightist are mental cripples, are the ones determining if and when paedophiles are ready to be released. Reassuring, hey ?

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Fascists Appeal To Idiots For Sympathy

Ah yes – Islamopaths get caught telling the truth by Channel 4, so you know what that means: back into Muslims Fear Backlash After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing territory.

Personally, I think these guys are bang on.

More Voting With The Backside

Talking of Blair, Matthew Parris pens a love letter to the Dear Leader in the Times. He lays out a tightly-argued thesis in favour of Blair’s underlying ideology.

Just kidding!

Nope, Parris praises Blair for promoting ‘tolerance’. What can he mean ? Admittedly, Parris makes weak attempts to try and link Blair’s position on the Most Important Issue Ever to more general trends, but his heart’s clearly not in it. Well, same ol’, same ol’. Except, of course, Parris is a former Tory MP and supposed commentator on political affairs.

See, that’s what’s so annoying about Parris and his ilk. Instead of taking the Peter Tatchell route and being up-front boosters for gay rights, they try to pass themselves off as Conservatives, yet on any issue even tangentially related to the MI2E, you can call their position even before the cards are dealt. Just who do they think’s buying it ?

A Heroine For Our Times

The Left’s snit with Blair has reached such absurd proportions that I now find myself warming to him. At least there’s still one member of the Blair family who is reliably appalling. Still, rancid though she is, you have to acknowledge Cherie’s important social role as the unacceptable face of Liberalism.

Leave aside the actual politics, and you have to admire how Princess Tony effortlessly triangulates and evades his way around even the wildest contradictions – hence why his Liberal critics have had to fall back on screeching hysteria. Cherie, on the other hand, wears her lunacy on her sleeve.

Cherie is a living example of what Liberalism really means. Liberals wax lyrical about abstract concepts like society, but what does all that boil down to in the real world ? Cherie hoovering up a warehouse full of clothes, soaking a cancer charity and then shaking down F-list celebrities for free holidays. Oh, and by the way, we must also remember that Cherie is a feminist icon, thanks to her huge achievements such as being married to the PM. Still, she always has her business acumen (and who better to act on her behalf than a convicted fraudster) ?

Liberalism is the belief that us peasants need to shut the hell up and gratefully accept the reign of Liberal philosopher kings. Well, here she is: Queen Cherie, Liberal archetype, the sleazy, selfish, shameless and, most of all, stupid living embodiment of what’s wrong with Liberalism. All you need to know is that every time someone calls for more government regulation, they’re calling for more power to go to people like Cherie Blair.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

More Fun With The BBC

Didn't I tell you that a Liberal slander squad would be scrambled? Once a judge outed himself a sane, it was only a matter of time before Liberals slimed him. Needless to say, first in line is the BBC with this remarkably mendacious report.

Reading the BBC's report you could be convinced that the accused was charged because, to quote the injured party,” he lunged at me and I had to retreat from the cell so the police made the decision to charge him”. Gosh - who could object to the police charging a guy who does that? Clearly, the judge must be some kind of racist himself, right?

Except, let's - since you won't hear this from the BBC - look at exactly what the judge said:
Any reading of what was actually said in court would make it clear that the potential seriousness of what occurred was that a police surgeon was threatened with violence and non-racial abuse to the extent that he decided he needed to leave the cell to which he had been called. This amounted to an assault, but this was not the offence charged.
“A gratuitous single piece of racist abuse was uttered as the surgeon left. This was the charge on which the full weight of the law had been brought to bear. My comments were not intended to make light of racist remarks.
Or, to spell it out for any Liberals reading, the judge was specifically questioning why the police had not prosecuted this obvious, blatant case of assault while bending over backwards to prosecute over a single word. To put it another way, the BBC report makes no sense whatsoever. The victim claims the assailant should have been charged over the assault, while the judge claimed the assailant should have been charged over the assault. The ‘abused surgeon’ was hitting back at the judge by agreeing with him.

Let's not beat around the bush here, anyone reading the BBC report alone would be left with the impression that the judge didn't think an assault on a police surgeon was any big thing. On the contrary, the whole point of the judge's speech was that the assault should have been prosecuted more vigorously than the supposed hate speech offence. You may, or may not, think hate crimes laws are a good idea, but to try and smear a man who criticises hate speech prosecution are somehow supporting actual violence is beyond sleazy. Maybe Liberals will defend it as just the way politics is but guess what, they just got through telling us that the BBC was unbiased. So which is it?

Liberal Education Saves Lives

Like we couldn't have guessed. In it's own way it's the perfect metaphor for Islam and the modern world
He went on to attend only three weeks of the summer term. Police later found six pages of notes from the course, with Islamic prayers scrawled in the margins, when they raided his council flat seven years later.
Apparently, Liberals were wrong. It turns out that if you're doing chemical stuff, you need a knowledge of chemistry. The rantings of the Paedo-Prophet is not a different, but equally valid, area of study after all. And no, the concept of the 'right concentration' is not a social construct either.

Wrong Sort Of Authenticity

OK, so I've resisted so far, I've got to pitch my 2p’s worth in about Celebrity Big Brother. Actually, tool though he is, Richard Littlejohn, neatly sums up the Alice in Wonderland quality to the MSM’s decision to concentrate on this example of racism on Channel 4. Of course, being firmly rooted in the MSM himself, old Ricky can't quite bring himself to say what really lies behind the MSM's decision, namely total cowardice. Hard though it is to believe, they've actually exceeded their performance during the Motoons fiasco.

Still, there is one other factor: the totally surreal debate over what one of those chavs actually said to the Indian lass. Liberal witch hunters allege that he told her a p***, while the chav in question maintains that he merely called her a c***.

The distinction might not be obvious to folks in the real world, but to Liberals it is all-important. The first version of words sealed his reputation as a Liberal hate figure, while the second is proof positive of working-class authenticity. Indeed, as much effort as Liberals are currently spending denouncing the chavs for their alleged racism, they spent previously telling us obnoxious behaviour was the hallmark of genuine working class culture.

For that matter, what of the Indian lass herself? By all reports she is intelligent, educated, prissy, and a master of the Princess Di-style conspicuous emoting, in short, the type of person Liberals has spent years trying to convince chavs to have a Pavlovian reaction of hatred to.

In so far as Liberals have spent years telling us the chavs are merely expressing a different, but equally valid, culture to the rest of us, they are the last people in the world qualified to claim to be shocked - shocked! - at the sight of Homo Chavus in action.

Of course, let's not lose sight of the cynical political calculation behind all this. The eulogisation of dysfunctional behaviour served their needs when it was directed towards the institutions of society, it's only now this behaviour had been turned towards one of their sacred cows that they profess themselves to be shocked at such people.

Back then, chavs served a useful role as shock troopers in the war against traditional British values, but now they're shocked that chavs won't blindly obey their prissy, little rules. Screaming abuse at all and sundry when faced with the slightest disappointment is perfectly understandable but calling an Indian “the Indian", why, Liberals have never heard anything so horrific.

Why be surprised when Big Brother's celebrity chav star disintegrates on camera? Don't ask why she thinks she can get away with it when in almost every other case she is not only got away with it, she’s positively been rewarded for it. Can anyone who's read these guy’s books claim to be shocked at these events? Liberals haven't been so unjustifiably enraged by events since they started noting Blair lies quite a lot.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Why Are Paedophile Priests Better Than BBC Reporters ?

Because there are some things even priests don't expect you to swallow:

It is something he has found difficult as, since his return, he says he has found it hard to be in large crowds and to talk about his experiences.
You will not believe which sociopathic publicity whore's profile that line appears in.

Liberalism Eating Itself

This is moronic, but still funny.

Scientists Baffled As Sane Judge Found

So, police officers arrest an innocent man then charge him with behaving offensively while he’s being held on the bogus charges. Well, it’s one way to get the figures up, but isn’t this what the Left used to oppose ?

Ah, but that’s forgetting the special hate crime monkey dust. Liberals are horrified by the thought that terrorists may be forced to have warm milk on their cornflakes, but when it comes to hate crimes, all bets are off. Except this time the impossible happened: the case came before a sane judge:
[Racist abuse] by a drunk towards an obviously highly professional, educated and respected member of society in a position of clear authority over the defendant, I found it hard to conceive that it could be taken as seriously upsetting abuse
Yowser! This guy must be like Charlton Heston in The Omega Man, walled up in his court while vampire Liberals mill outside. That’s not all. He puts his finger on the Yang to the Yin of Liberal obsession with hate crimes:
Any reading of what was actually said in court would make it clear that the potential seriousness of what occurred was that a police surgeon was threatened with violence and non-racial abuse to the extent that he decided he needed to leave the cell to which he had been called. This amounted to an assault, but this was not the offence charged.

“A gratuitous single piece of racist abuse was uttered as the surgeon left. This was the charge on which the full weight of the law had been brought to bear.
Indeed. It would be easier to take the Liberal obsession with naughty words, if only they put the same energy into dealing with actual, real thugs. But no. Still, I have to say that I’m impressed this guy's survived as long as he has. I guessing a Liberal Slander Squad has already been scrambled. Then again, maybe not. After all, Liberals don’t seem to be worried about hate speech anymore.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

One Priest Scandal The MSM Won't Touch

ATW passes on some more evidence of the long suspected tie-up between the Catholic Church and the IRA. Doubtless, some would point out that these were rogue priests, yet not even the otherwise excellent Popes JP II and B16 have managed to come out with anything like a full-throated condemnation of those loveable leprechauns.

The bottom line is that if you were a full-on, Dawkinsesque critic of religion, then the news that priests stepped out with murdering scum should be the mother lode, but Liberals aren't answering the phone. The Catholic Church is attacked because of its central role in western civilisation, rather than for any deep moral reasons. That's why they'll pass up the chance to take a shot at the Church if doing so would mean being on the same side as civilisation. It's the essentially nihilistic nature of the modern Left - they'll always take whatever angle is most harmful to the West.

The Missing Stage Two

Further proof for my theory that the Left’s always missing the middle bit. Look at the Simone Clarke whingeathon. Liberals claim a dancer supports the BNP, something something something, death camps open in Essex. As Cobbett points out, the Left has got some brass neck warning of the dangers of extremist loonies using public office to propagate their views.

But What About A Gay Scouser ?

Nothing proves BBC bias like the subject of BBC bias. In BBC land, any scepticism about BBC impartiality is proof, in and of itself, of mental problems. They just can’t handle the idea that their critics might actually have a point.

It isn’t just politics either. Look at this drivel. Now, being a real Conservative – unlike, say, David Cameron – I think folks like McKenzie should be positively encouraged to show their genius on national TV. After all, as Lincoln said, the thing that kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself. What sticks in the throat though is seeing this man cast as some kind of social commentator. Let’s start with the headline ‘Controversial Views’. Huh ? The two Peters, Tatchell and Hitchens, have controversial views. McKenzie is just a bigoted nutcase and proven fraud. Simone Clark he ain’t. Take away the hatred and the ranting and there’s nothing there.

Of course, the BBC would have a point, if they were indeed prepared to carry ‘controversial views’ but on the contrary, the BBC is proverbial for its cringing PC attitudes, as perfectly exemplified here. Ditto, consider the girly hysteria on the BBC when Ron Atkinson was overheard uttering a racial slur. Does anyone seriously doubt that if McKenzie’s reputation was built on slurring, say, Jamaicans he’d never get within a country mile of a BBC studio ?

More than that though, what is it the BBC keeps mentioning ? Ah yes, the unique way it’s funded. If McKenzie was making his money giving after-dinner speeches to drunken businessmen in the Home Counties, that would be one thing, but on the BBC it’s inevitable that at least a part of his fee was paid for by the very people he rants about. That’s the fundamental problem with the BBC: it claims the right to leech off everyone while maintaining a strict hierarchy of who it feels it should serve. Single complaint about homophobia ? Grovelling all round. Thousands of people demonstrating their disgust at the BBC hiring McKenzie ? Hire him again. You might think this indicates a certain bias, but the BBC would point out that that’s only because you’re nuts.

A Weasel Writes

Apparently. It’s National Potential PM’s Publish Vacuous Articles Week. Laban alerts us to a piece of steaming gunk from SCOTLAND’S Gordon Brown, while there’s this from Camewrong:
'We can see he looks like a winner, but what does he really believe?" "Isn't he just copying Blair?" "Is he actually a Conservative at all?" Daily Telegraph readers tempted to think that the Conservative Party leadership is distant from its grass roots should know that party members and activists ask me these questions – sometimes more robustly than I could repeat in a family newspaper – all the time.
Does he really think anyone will believe he talks to the ordinaries ?
And my answers are clear.
No one will believe that.
What I really believe is that if we're going to make our country a better place to live – with a stronger economy, well-educated children and lower crime – everyone needs to understand that top-down central government is never going to do it on its own. Businesses, parents, and local communities must be given more responsibility. I believe in social responsibility, not state control.
It’s the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, The Forehead will do nothing to dismantle the elephantine state sector – nor, of course, the taxes needed to maintain it. Hey, at least Gordon Brown supports Big Government because he genuinely believes that if the rest of us were left to our own devices, we’d end up stabbing ourselves to death with our own pens. Cameron wants to keep the machinery of Big Government, but when it’s time to deliver on his side of the social contract, tell all and sundry to stand on their own two feet.
Far from copying Tony Blair, I am learning from his many and serious mistakes.
Indeed. Just look how much flak he got over ‘Education. Education. Education’ or ‘Tough on crime’. You won’t catch Cameron doing that – nope, he’ll say nothing of any substance whatsoever, that way there’ll be no comebacks.
Instead of simply accepting the political consensus of the time, as Blair did, I am challenging it.
Presumably the concensus that there’s no room in Britain for three left-wing parties ?
New Labour was all about coming to terms with Conservative victory in the battle of ideas.
The Conservatives won the battle of ideas ? I guess that’s why judicial activism is a fading memory, there’s never a ‘five a day’ coordinator around when you need one and Trevor Phillips is on the streets with a sign saying ‘Will provoke meaningless racial conflict for food’.
The modern Conservative Party is about replacing the failed New Labour experiment, not aping it.
Admittedly, is so far as even Tony Blair never dreamed up anything as barking-at-the-moon nutso as fat permits, Cameron truly has taken Big Government onto the next level.
Those who ask whether I am a Conservative need to know that the foundation stones of the alternative government that we're building are the ideas that should unite us all: the ideas that encouraged me as a young man to join the Conservative Party and work for Margaret Thatcher.
Pity he didn’t get inspired to work in the real world, but thanks for the reminder that you’ve never had a proper job, you silver-spoon totting retard.
Those ideas are profound and enduring: freedom under the law, personal responsibility, sound money, strong defence and national sovereignty.
As Stan says, them’s not ideas, them’s ideals. Anyway, if the Conservatives won the battle of ideas, why is it necessary for a party leader to emphasise that he’s in favour of ‘national sovereignty’ ? Mind you, that’s still better than claiming you support ‘freedom under law’. Even John Reid would claim to support that.
That is why, under my leadership, we have opposed ID cards and will replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights that better protects both our security and our freedom.
Or it would do, except Britain would still remain bound by the underlying, supra-national legislation meaning that, at best, these idiot rulings would simply be handed down from the European Court of Human Rights instead of from the High Court.

See, this policy is Cameronism in a nutshell. The case against the human rights industry is wide-ranging, covering issues like the way the definition of rights have morphed to include entitlements, the overruling of elected governments by unaccountable lawocrats, the effect on national sovereignty, and so on. And Cameron’s response ? A headline-grabbing yet completely meaningless change of no strategic importance whatsoever.
It is why I have made the strongest commitment to supporting the family and marriage that any Conservative leader has made for a generation.
In so far as Cameron is known for anything at all, it’s throwing in his hand with the Pink Wedge. True, it was a politican who came up with the phrase ‘if you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the circus’, but this really is too much. Cameron it was who took the Tories down the road of ‘everyone’s special’ moral relativism, where everything was the same as everything else and the only true evil was judgementalism. As with everything else Cameron has ever said, his commitment to marriage amounts to a calorie-free endorsement of feel good nonsense, bereft of any policy implications whatsoever.
It is why we are pledged to share the proceeds of economic growth between public services and lower taxes, thereby ensuring that over time the state takes a smaller share of national wealth.
Now, ain’t that nice ? He’s promised to share the proceeds of growth with us. Except it’ll be our hard work that secures the growth in the first place, so he’s offering to share our own money with us. Except when we fall off a ladder, either metaphorically or literally, we’ll get little lectures about how top-down government can’t do it all, so you’re on your own, dude.
It is why we support the replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent and have led the campaign for better conditions for Forces families.
Another truly Cameroonatic policy. When people talk about the need to increase defence spending, they’re talking about vehicles which have more survivability than, say, a Mini, or ammunition that actually goes bang. But no, that’s all a bit manly for the Pastel Prince, so instead it’s new bathrooms for the wives and kiddies. Yay for that, but I think they’d rather dad had the stuff he needs to end up not dead.
It is why we will restore Britain's opt-out from the European Social Chapter, and it is why we have announced our withdrawal from the federalist European People's Party.
Always assuming of course that the other 24 countries let us opt out. And if they decide to reimpose the provisions of the social chapter via the back door by, say, rebranding them as health and safety measures, what then ? Given that Cameron promised to pull out of the EPP in the first week of his leadership, I wouldn’t bet the farm on the social chapter disappearing anytime soon.
Our new Movement for European Reform is a pan-European campaign to promote a positive vision of an outward-looking Europe rather than an inward-looking EU obsessed with its own bureaucracy.
But who the hell couldn’t sign up to that ? Newsflash: Cameron criticised by Labour MPs calling for insular, self-obsessed, sclerotic EU. No, I don’t think so.
We will continue to oppose an EU constitution that is about transferring power away from nation states and we will keep the pound as our currency.
Except up until ten minutes ago the Tories were telling us they opposed an EU Constitution in principle. Ahhhhh…and he just got through telling us how eurosceptic he was. Guess it’s true – never trust a Tory.
But these Conservative intellectual foundations are just the start.
Listen, Dave, this stuff doesn’t even count as intellectual tent pegs.
We must now apply them to the hopes and aspirations of people and families today, just as Mrs Thatcher applied Conservative principles to the challenges of the 1980s.
Hold this thought until you see what’s coming next.
Commentators such as Tim Congdon seem to have forgotten much of what Mrs Thatcher said and did. It was Mrs Thatcher who launched the Scarman inquiry in 1981 in an attempt to understand the alienation of young black men. And it was Mrs Thatcher who launched modern environmental politics with her Royal Society speech in 1988.
Thereby neatly debunking the whole point of Cameroonacy, namely that traditional Conservatism must be ditched in order to deal with social problems. Mrs Thatcher did deal with issues like inner city decay, the environment and the like. How successful was she ? Decide for yourself, but she proved that you don’t have to be a Kool Aid drinker to be concerned with these issues.
The reduction of Thatcherism into a sort of laissez-faire libertarianism does not do justice to her record.
So stop doing it then, you prat.
She was animated by a vision of the good society – a vision obscured by decades of economic dirigisme and cultural relativism. The task she set herself was to restore not only personal liberty in economic matters, but also a sense of duty, respect and moral obligation in social matters.
Has this guy got ADD or what ? This is another case of Cameron contradicting himself in the same paragraph. They key word is ‘restore’. Mrs Thatcher wanted to protect the traditional values that had served Britain well for hundreds of years. She emphatically did not have want to use the state to impose any wacky visions or utopian wish dreams about the ‘good society’ or anything else.
I, too, am animated by a vision of the good society.
Who isn’t ? The question is whether or not you want to use the power of the state to impose that vision on other people. Mrs Thatcher defended traditional British values against Leftists social engineers. Cameron positively supports the idea of government indulging in Frankensteinian attempts to remake the culture.
What I call social responsibility – responsibility to family and community, nation and planet – is as central to my politics as economic liberalism. Indeed, I believe the two are closely related.
Much as shagging and virginity are.
It is that combination of social responsibility and economic liberalism that is best placed to deliver what people really want from politics today: a government that helps to improve their quality of life.
Hang on, when we came in Cameron was telling us that top-down government couldn’t do that. Which is it ? Or does it change depending on who the Forehead is talking to ?
So when I talk about social responsibility and social enterprise, when I express anxiety about the commercialisation of childhood or say we need to create an inspiring national programme for school leavers, I am not proposing some vast expansion in state programmes.
But what is, for example, a ‘national program for school leavers’ if not a massive expansion of state power ? Someone’s got to fund it, and run it.
On the contrary, I am identifying the priorities for independent social action that will allow us, over time, to help improve the quality of people's lives.
Yep, the patrician snob is taking time out to identify priorities for independent action. Makes you wonder what ‘independent’ means in his world.
The past year has been about establishing the Conservative Party as the party of change, optimism and hope.
Yep, they’re optimistic that people are so desperate for a change, they’ll vote for any old bunch of idiots and hope for the best.
For years we have allowed ourselves to be presented as narrow-minded and backward-looking.
Mostly by Tory MPs upset that the plebs insist on them actually displaying some modicum of Conservative values.
This perception was never true of our philosophy, nor of the vast majority of our supporters.
But it was true of some supporters then ? For the sake of Camoron’s absurd argument, can we get a percentage here ? Just how many supporters does he think want to legalise wife-beating, for example ?
I am proud that we are once again regarded by our fellow citizens as decent, competent and comfortable with the modern world.
Again, this is where the rubber meets the road. Which parts of ‘the modern world’ should we be comfortable with ? The violence, the collapsing educational standards, the failing health system ? These, and many others, are all serious issues, and Cameron’s ducking the lot of them. I guess we’re supposed to chill out and accept that ever-increasing numbers of kids leaving school unable to read and write is the way of the world.

For all their prancing and posturing, the Cameroonatics have not the slightest idea how to deal with real world problems, so instead they’re becoming to the political equivalent of the eye-rolling teenager whining that going on about the NHS is, like, so ten minutes ago. Cameron’s most dramatic achievement has been how he has extinguished serious political debate in the Conservative Party and replaced it with trivia and nonsense.
Modernising the party, increasing the number of women candidates, leading the debate on the greening of British politics, making clear our commitment to the NHS and state education, challenging Labour over the need to tackle entrenched poverty – these were all important steps forward for the Conservative Party in 2006.
Yes – it’s his cunning plan to beat the Left by adopting all their policies
But now the real work begins.
Which would be a unique experience for Cameron.
If 2006 was about changing the party, 2007 is about preparing to change the country.
But I thought he was at ease with the modern world ?
Over the coming months our policy review will report.
Speaking personally, I’d rather have a PM who didn’t need a think tank to tell him what he believes.
We will be going firmly on to the offensive against Labour, and the record and plans of Gordon Brown in particular.

Mr Brown's recent clunking attempts to steal our clothes – talking about social responsibility and the environment and even, preposterously, suggesting that he believes in decentralisation and local autonomy – are evidence of his moral and intellectual exhaustion.
As opposed to the Nu Tories, who never had any morals or ideas in the first place.
The Conservative Party now has a huge opportunity.
But to do what ?
We can present Britain with a clear choice: a modern and coherent Conservatism, based on the idea of social responsibility, or a divided and defeatist Labour Party wedded to the old ways of state control.
Social responsibility, state control, potat-oh, potat-ah.
I hope all true Conservatives will join us in the fight.
Dude, we’ll join the fight. Just not on your side, you slimy toad.

Well, OK, that was David Cameron’s message to the nation’s Conservatives, his big ideas. All the same garbage we have now, except that Cameron won’t even pretend that his ideas amount to anything at all.

At least with Blair there was - behind the sleaze, the triangulation and the sheer awfulness of his lowest common denominator politics, the rotting remains of a genuine idealism. True, Blair’s policies were mostly insane, but he understood that politics had to be about more than just the moment. That’s what’s wrong with Cameron, not just the arrogance, the sleaze, the incompetence and the thousand other things. It’s that underlying it all is a nothingness, a soulless shell. Hey, Blair had an excuse: Liberalism was always sick and disgusting, but to hollow out Conservatism the way Cameron has done, now that takes skill.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Liberalism In A Nutshell

Policies proving to be an utter failure ? Why not try even more of the same ?

Beam Down A Clue

Call it a hunch, but I'm guessing that if a Republican congressman claimed that America was like Buffy Summers fighting off vampire terrorists, you wouldn't have needed to go on line to find out about it.

Not A Libertarian

Among the seven hundred or so excuses for Cameron is that his betrayal of social conservatives is actually a reflection of genuinely held Libertarian beliefs. He just has the idealistic vision of people being free to live there lives how they choose.


So how come Captain Freedom has linked arms with Unite Against Fascism, the off-the-scale Leftist headbangers who've appointed themselves chief witch hunters in the case of Simone Clarke ? 'Cause I'm kind of thinking that wanting to destroy the careers of people with the wrong views - not very Libertarian. Au contrair, in so far as UAF are an avowedly Marxist organisation, for a party leader - a Tory, no less - to associate with them raises far more questions that the political views of any number of ballet dancers.

Did Anyone Not Speak To Kelvin McKenzie ?

Looks like the fat fraud has unveiled yet another secret source for his Hillsborough rantings. Back in the day, he claimed he had his info from a senior (needless to say, unnamed) police officer. Then it turned out that an (also unamed) Tory MP gave him the same story (though what one of them was doing at a footy match was never quite explained). Now, he's claimed that a (well, you know) 'Liverpool-based news agency' also gave him the story. I'm guessing by 2017, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prince Charles will also turn out to have pitched in.

It says a lot about the MSM's view of ethics that no one ever thinks to ask McKenzie the obvious question: in so far as the only specific allegation he made, namely that a pack of marauding scousers broke down the entry gates, was debunked by CCTV footage almost as soon as it was made, why should anyone believe the rest of his rantings about unnamed people victimising other unnamed people at unspecified locations and times ?

Who'd Have Thunk It ?

Remember Molly Campbell, the young girl from Scotland, who's completely independent decision to up-sticks to live with her father in Pakistan was just another messy family break-up with no Islamofascist overtones whatsoever ? Well, you'll never guess, but...

Speaking personally, I'm just shocked! And after all those MSM reports slobbering over Dad's big house with tennis courts and everything. Hey, professionally-credentialed journalists, here's an idea: why not pretend you're actual reporters instead of acting like you're freelancing for Home & Garden ?

Meanwhile, we're left noting - once again - that an extremist loon has been given rave reviews by supposed 'moderate' Muslim 'comunidee leaders'.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

It's The Special Olympics Of Victimhood Poker

Yep, looks like the Guardian has had the cards out again. They've denounced someone for anti-Semitism. Your challenge is to guess who:

  1. An Islamopath

  2. A Black 'Communidee Leader'

  3. A Loony Christian

Yep, if you guessed 3, you're bang on. The Guardian has decided that Mel Gibson's latest film is anti-Semitic.

Whassat ? You're saying that it features Mayans. Well, technically, yesssssssss, but you know, our supa-smart Liberal betters can detect all manner of code words there - they've got that there theological literacy. Try this:

For Mayan pyramids read Jewish temple. Gibson knows that Jewish temple worship only involved animal sacrifice. None the less, his Mayan high priest draws from some of the worst caricatures of the bloodthirsty Jew as invented during the middle ages.
Frankly, it seems kind of a stretch.

On the other hand, you don't need a lot of theological literacy to detect anti-Semitism in, say, a major newspaper pushing fraudulent claims of bloodthirsty Jewish savages raining down fire on ambulances. But no: the only anti-Semites the Left hates are the ones who worship a Jew.

Like Dresden, But With Cows

Is this meant to be a serious report, or is there a secret satirist deep inside the Shepard's Bush cube ?

Following US air strikes in southern Somalia targeting suspected al-Qaeda leaders, several herding areas have been hit by bombs...

We do not have the figures of the dead animals as a result of the air strikes but they are very many livestock that have been killed by the bombs.
Seriously, our licence fee is being used to expose brutality to pasture. And I thought Liberals were in favour of burning grass ?

Actually, the whole report is a piece of work. Or, rather, it's a piece of no-work whatsoever, since it mainly consists of the unsubstantiated testimony of an unnamed (oops, make that 'anonymous citing security reasons') 'elder' - whatever that means. Apparently, the BBC has heard of the whole 'journalistic standards' thing, but they're hoping it'll all blow over.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

Now that the Ethiopians have forced the Islamopaths to hit the road, the US has been able to use its air power against the enemy columns to excellent effect. What could go wrong ? Well, there's this:
Helicopter gunships attacked suspected al-Qaida fighters in the south Tuesday after U.S. forces staged airstrikes in the first offensive in the African country since 18 American soldiers were killed there in 1993, witnesses said.

Witnesses said 31 civilians, including two newlyweds, died in the assault by two helicopters near Afmadow, a town in an area of forested hills close to the Kenyan border 220 miles southwest of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu.
I dunno, call me cynical but that all rings a bell. I can't help feeling I've heard it somewhere before. Ah yes:
The US military has denied allegations that its forces in Iraq killed dozens of people celebrating a marriage in the west of the country.

Initial reports suggested that a wedding party near the Syrian border was the target of a US air strike.
No wait: that wasn't it. Maybe it was this one ?
Reports from Afghanistan say the United States air force has mistakenly bombed a village wedding party, killing many of the guests.

A witness from the village, in Uruzgan province, told the BBC the overnight raid left scores of people - many of them women - dead.
You know, I'm starting to see a pattern here. Maybe it's some as yet unidentified capability of US ordinance: 'yeah, it can home in on heat sources, electromagnetic emitters or really overpriced venues and dull speeches' ?

The same MSM which can't report MI-5's views on whether or not it'll rain tomorrow without deconstructing it to the nth degree, swallow this stuff whole. Wedding parties getting hit every time the US goes to war with Islamopaths ? Sure, why not ? Police warning of potential terrorist attacks ? What's their agenda ?

See, this is what we mean when we talk about media bias.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Thought For The Day

Say what you like about the Cameroonatics, but at least they've finally killed the myth that drug abuse encourages creativity.

Nice Party You've Got Here

I'm glad to see the Boy King is succeeding in his quest to drive out the loony extremists and attract a smarter, saner, less prejudiced crowd to the Nu Tories. Check out questions 2 and 4 over here.

It's that time again:

Outrage D'Jour

Via the comments over at B-BBC, we learn what our PC PCs really think of political opponents:
An-ex TV host wants compensation from police over an alleged hate incident for which he was never prosecuted...

The 65-year-old says despite the case being dropped, his name is on a "homophobic incidents register" and a rude e-mail was sent out about him.
First up, let's review the 'alleged hate incident':
Mr Page was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after a pro-hunting speech he made in Frampton-on-Severn.

He said supporters of the traditional country way of life "should be given the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays".

The Crown Prosecution did not proceed with the case because of insufficient evidence.
'Insufficient evidence' ? Well, that's technically true, but only in the sense that there's 'insufficient evidence' that the moon is made of green cheese.

See, this is how Liberals argue. They advance absurd charges, then when they're blown out of the water, they cite the charge itself as evidence of guilt.

Come to think of it, where are the usual suspects ? Liberals keep waxing pious about how even the most depraved have their fundemental human rights, so how about folks who've never even been charged with anything. Here it is: the police have been caught keeping secret lists of people whose only crime has been to hold unapproved views. How come Shami, Cherie and the rest of the Liberal deadbeats aren't on the case ?

Like we can't guess. Not that the whole 'human rights' thing is just an excuse for judicial activism though.

But that's not even the best of it. The same people who go to absurd lengths to avoid calling a spade a spade have no qualms about laughing along at the thought of their opponents dying:
The offending e-mail, regarding a trip Mr Page was making to Kenya, said: "Hopefully, he'll get eaten by a crocodile".

A Gloucestershire Police spokesman said: "In this specific case, the officer's choice of words is unfortunate.

"The statement made was meant in a light-hearted manner and was not intended to cause offence. We would like to apologise if this was the case."
Gosh, why would public servants expressing their desire for the death of political opponents cause offense ? It's a mystery alright.

Needless to say, the bar seems to be set a little higher here than in some other cases. So what was it that Robin Page said that was so inflammatory ? Ah yes:
He said supporters of the traditional country way of life "should be given the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays".

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Cultural Enrichment Latest

Oh yes: this is what we need more of in this country.

Money For Nothing

Re: the looming threat of Nazi yoof

From Mr Chalk we learn that Shelia Ridell, she of school uniforms=Nazism infamy, is a Professor of Inclusion.

I got nothing: satire is defenceless against such lunacy.

Dept Of The Obvious

You could fill a whole blog just reporting on examples of the Left discovering the blindingly obvious. Today’s example is their discovery that forcing people to pile up rubbish encourages vermin. Rubbish collection as a vital part of sanitation ? Who'd have thunk it ?

Jews: Is There Anything They Can't Do ?

While the Guardian is desperately trying to convince us that a lass who pirouettes for a living and is married to a Chinese dude from Cuba is a really huge Nazi, they’re carrying on with their normal program of anti-Semitic lunacy.

Yes, I know: two-faced scumbaggery from the Left. Whatever next ? But what makes this an extra special example of humbuggery is that it’s all wrapped up in an article full of pious preaching about those unaccountable bloggers. It’s a perfect 10 of Liberal pathology.

Of course, it’s always painful, yet compelling, when Liberals try to moralise like, say, watching David Cameron rapping, or Rowan Williams try and breakdance. The Guardian is not impressed that US uber-blogger Zombietime dared raise questions about the supposed Israeli attack on two ambulances. The Left won’t let her get away with that – no, siree. HRW rushed into print with a report claiming Zombietime is super-wrong to infinity plus one.

Yes, indeed: Zombietime suggested that Lefty NGOs and the MSM were, unwittingly or otherwise, part of an anti-Israeli hoax, and the Left’s response is to cite a report from a Lefty NGO. Well, I’m convinced…

Wait….. I heart a plaintive whining in the corner. Why, it’s Mr Liberal, he’s asking that we consider the report on its own merits, rather than dismiss it of of hand just because of its association with a bunch of lunatics – you know, just like the Left always does.

Well, OK, let’s see what strikes the Guardian as a knockout blow, namely this statement from the Israeli Army:
We (Israel Defence Forces) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety. There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure.
What might strike Earth people as a statement of the blindingly obvious –namely that the IDF doesn’t target civilians, but they can’t ensure the safety of any that blunder into an area where fire is being exchanged, is counted by the Guardian as ‘probably as close to an admission as we are going to get’.

This is so desperate it doesn’t even count as sleight of hand. What even the hard core loonies at HRW acknowledge is that the damage could only have been caused by an air-strike. There could have been shelling of Somme proportions, but that couldn’t possible account for the damage observed.

Ditto, all you need to know about the HRW approach to evidence is that having admitted that the putative strike could only have been carried out by either a conventional aircraft or a drone, yet finding no one who could testify to seeing an aircraft, they announce that this proves there must have been a drone there. The lack of evidence itself becomes proof. This is the logic of the Inquisition.

It’s the same story with the muntitions supposedly used. In abscene of so much as a single fragment of the putative bomb, HRW half-heartedly suggests a couple of possible candidates, neither of them credible (and both comprehensively debunked by Zombietime), before concluding that the attack was clearly carried out by some kind of experimental weapon whose details have not been made public. So, once again, the absence of evidence is proof of guilt.

Incidentally, this must be some bomb. As Zombietime points out, the damage can only be accounted for by a bomb that fragments so as to rain down shrapnel on the vehicles yet can penetrate straight through the ambulances and into the road below.

It’s a sign of the times when the closest HRW get to landing a glove on Zombietime is when they sneer that they, unlike her, have actually been to the site of the alleged bombings. Yes, indeed. This is the state of the modern, Liberal-infested, Left: arguing that we should believe them because they are rich and influential, and their opponents are neither. It’s also ironic that an MSM outlet is quoting approvingly folks whose position is basically that you can’t tell anything just by analysing the output of the media.

For that matter, what did HRW’s tour of Lebanon actually yield? Consider the question of the mystery munition. HRW’s report includes photographs of holes in the road it says were caused by the mystery bomb, but their crack investigators didn’t think to move on to the obvious next stage, namely digging up the supposed fragments. Au contraire, what’s striking about HRW’s supposed investigation on the ground is how little new evidence it produced. For all the sneering at Zombietime, you’d be hard pressed to see what HRW’s trip to Lebanon has actually produced, other than confirmation that the people who claimed that the Israelis bomb ambulances, are still claiming that Israelis bomb ambulances.

Whatever the specifics of this particular case, it’s hard not to detect a certain strangeness in the MSM declaring that claims that left-leaning NGOs took part in a hoax have been debunked by a report from a left-leaning NGO. Memo to MSM: you don’t get to decide anymore. If it’s a choice between Zombietime citing yields of Israeli ordinance and HRW’s explosive deus ex machine, I know who I’ll go for.

But there’s more to it than mere blog-bashing. Questioning the MSM isn’t just blasphemy, why, it even puts lives at risk:
However, as I have written before, these types of claims do really place the lives of humanitarian aid workers in danger.
See what I mean about the Left always missing out Stage 2 ? Citizens raise questions about MSM reporting, something something something, humanitarian aid workers end up dead. Huh ? Guess the only way to be safe is to blindly accept anything they say.

On the other hand, the Guardian and its MSM fellow travellers carrying vile, anti-Semitic drivel about magic missiles, invisible aircraft and the like is the very epitome of democracy. Absolutely no danger of any violence being stirred up there!

To return to where we came in, Simone Clarke never made any anti-Semitic comments, she never took part in an anti-Semitic fraud and she never authored an article which drew on every negative stereotype of murderous Jews savages slaughtering the innocent. Maybe that’s where she went wrong ?

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Beeboids In Hell

They just don't know what angle to take on this.

Der Hund aß meine Heimarbeit

The Government has announced a new policy on education - from now on, schools wil.....

Oh, who cares ? It's all a displacement activity. These people are so in hock to Big Education, they'll do anything but admit that the biggest problem in education is that a sizeable proportion of the people in the education establishment are howling mad.


If this works, expect the Boy King to try the same thing next month.

But that's not it! The best thing about that post is the spider video at the bottom. Not much good if they scare you though.

Who's This 'We', Paleface ?

Steyn, perfect as ever:
But the moral posturing of Europeans is less a guide to practical policy on war and jihad than a glimpse of their own psychological isolation. The German Web site Davids Medienkritik provided a useful round-up of local reports on Saddam's hanging: "Die Europaer verurteilten die Anwendung der Todesstrafe," declared Die Zeit. "The Europeans condemn the use of the death penalty."

What "Europeans"? Not the majority of Germans who approve of the execution. Not the 58% of French citizens. Not the seven out of 10 Britons. When Die Zeit and The Times and all the rest say that "Europe" condemns the death of Saddam, what they mean is that a narrow, remote, self-insulating politico-media elite condemns it.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Liberals Forced To Argue Facts; Scream, Pout, Whine

Hmmmm…. Seems like pretty soon the Left is going to have to decide: was the Guardian’s seven month investigation that lead to the outing of the so-called BNP ballerina the greatest intelligence coup since ULTRA, or was Simone Clarke always ‘a vociferous member of an avowedly racist party’. Which is it ? Secret stormtrooper or not ? (Bonus question: how many of the Leftists tossing round the phrase ‘BNP ballerina’ objected to people calling the vics in Sussex ‘prostitiutes’ ? I’d say a top ballet dancer has a least as much of a hinterland as a hooker).

Right up until the Guardian’s alleged expose, no one even knew anything about Simone Clarke’s politics. That’s how ‘vociferous’ she was. She was the victim of an attempted MSM drive by, so she gave a pitch-perfect interview that reduced the Daily Mail to limp snark. That’s it, that’s what’s reduced the whole of the British Left to whining about her ‘using her position as a platform’: someone’s actually stood their ground.

Yep – it’s true: even ballet dancers are tougher than Liberals.

Incidentally, that quote about a ‘a vociferous member of an avowedly racist party’ came from Lee Jasper. Yes, that Lee Jasper, proud Chair of the following organisations:

National Black Alliance

National Black Caucus

Operation Black Vote
Current member of the Black Jewish Forum

Former Director of the 1990 Trust (1995 - 2000) ‘a leading policy organisation on issues affecting African, Asian, and Caribbean communities in the United Kingdom and Europe.

1998 Winner of the Premiere Community Award from Britain's biggest black newspaper, The Voice

President of the National Black Students Alliance
So, just to review the evidence: British nationalism bad, black nationalism good.

Yeah, yeah, I know: no matter how many Armani suits Trevor Phillips lays in, he’ll still be a victim, just as much as a homeless, white, Falklands veteran will always be an oppressor.

See, that’s it, right there. That’s why people join the BNP

Monday, January 01, 2007

Visiting Alien Makes Important Discovery

Well, OK, we'll give her some credit for getting the correct diagnosis, but what is it with these people and the constant quest for 'root causes' ?

Britons are incapable of emulating the European drinking culture because they "enjoy getting drunk," Labour party chairman Hazel Blears has said.

She told the Sunday Times people enjoyed "risk-taking" and "want to push the limits of danger".
Well, either that or we just, y'know, like getting loaded. Sober and drunk is the difference between walking round with an albatross round the neck and being an albatross borne aloft on wings of hooch.

Theocracy Warning!!!!!

Everyone panic! The Christianists are trying to lecture us again. When will these weird cultists stop trying to foist their warped values on us sane people ?

Oops. Turns out the Hippy was talking about Iraq, doubtless quoting the famous parable about the Good Samaritan who realised he had no right to interfere in other people’s business. Anyway, let’s check the scorecard here. Church talking about sexual mores: evil attempt to impose their values on people. Church talking about military strategy: valuable contribution from the nation’s conscience.

But that’s not the best of it. Not only does the Bible include previously overlooked hints on waging war, it also includes tips on education. Hey, we should ask him if there’s anything in there about setting or practical work.

Actually, now I think about it, the Church of England is the ultimate example of my theory that there is a positive correlation between how bad an institution is at its core mission, and how much extraneous nonsense it devotes itself to. Let’s talk about education: back in the day they taught the three Rs and anything less than 90% literacy was a scandal. Now, schools seem to spend half their time talking about taking drugs anally in the rainforest (I admit it’s a while since I’ve read the curriculum), and a third of the kids couldn’t read the side of a cornflake packet. Or take Mr Plod: he might not be able to catch the clap in Amsterdam, but he’s got a nifty line in outreach. And so on….

So it is with the Anglicans. Their success at promoting Christian values in the wider society speaks for itself, but even on purely parochial issues they’re pathetic. Consider that new legislation means C of E schools will be forced to teach the glories of rampant butt banging. An observer might think that the Hippy was rather better qualified to speak out on this issue rather than the intricacies of national defence but no, he’s been rather more circumspect here. Apparently, Jesus’ teachings coincide exactly with the agenda of the Guardian.

We’re All Gullible, Each In Our Own Way

Funnily enough, I had the same thought, but I always assumed there was something I was missing. See, even I get caught putting ludicrous limits on the duplicity of Libs.

Science News

Who’d have thunk it ? We’re still waiting for the final data from the Ursine Defecation Research Unit though.

It Means What It Says

Couple of interesting comments to this post. Both AntiCitizenOne and Rop make good points about the politics involved in translating the Koran. There’s something more there too.

At least part of the problem with translating the Koran is the argument of Islamic scholars that Allah chose to reveal the Koran in Arabic [1] and so it would be blasphemy to change Allah’s word by translating them into another language. This might sound obscure or wacky, but consider that one of the dhimmi’s favourite arguments is that the bloodthirsty passages in the Koran are merely the equivalent of similar passages in the Bible.

The trouble is that the Bible is mainly hearsay, written by actual humans, so naturally the various passages reflect the era in which they were written. If the Bible includes incidents of obnoxiousness, then that may reflect that it was written by obnoxious people, rather than anything particular about God, and so on. Or maybe not, but at least it’s an arguable point.

The Koran, on the other hand, was supposedly passed verbatim from Allah to the Paedo Prophet. No interpretation needed, no second-guessing: when Allah says ‘kill the Infidel’, he expects to see some heads on spikes NOW!

That’s why it’s essentially bogus to argue for equivalence between the two books. Even committed Christians will admit that a section of the Bible reflects one particular interpretation of God, at one time. The Koran, however, is the perfect word of Allah, correct for all time. Like it or lump it, you can’t pretend that all those references to swords secretly means ploughshares.

[1] but not really as AnitCitizenOne points out