Thursday, May 31, 2007

Witch D'Jour

A strangely appropriate phrase in this case. Must be another of those non-existent extremists. Is this a case of self-demonisation ?

To return to a point I made yesterday, are we sure cancer can't be cured with lemonade ? With Super Geniuses like this running the research effort, who's to say they'd even notice ?

Coulter D'Jour

Red meat for Laban:
At the precise moment in history when the U.S. has abandoned any attempt to transmit Anglo-Saxon virtues to its own citizens, much less to immigrants, George Bush wants to grant citizenship to hordes of immigrants who are here precisely because they are fleeing cultures that are utterly dysfunctional and ruinous for the humans who live in them.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

What About Taxpayer Freedom ?

Academics have claimed that plans to tackle extremism on campus will hinder freedom of expression. Didn't they used to think that was a good thing ?

Let's just check the scorecard here: BNP - no confirmed kills, Islamofascists: July 7, Kris Donald, Major Singh Gill, Chris Yates, Isiah Young-Sam, Mary Ann Leneghan.... run for your lives everyone! The right-wing extremists are coming!

I think we're starting to see why the War On Cancer has been such a bust.

Come to think of it, how come these Liberals keep claiming that anti-terrorism measures will hit Muslims hard ? Is there some kind of connection between Islam and terrorism ? I think we should be told.

Still, we do get pious sermons about the importance of academic freedom:
Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to discuss and debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme.
Really ?

Cause I can't help but think that the message hasn't entirely got out. Hey, does anyone know if lunatics threatening to disrupt lectures is a threat to academic freedom, or would that be 'demonising' them ?
A separate motion, put forward by university lecturers in London, argued increased surveillance of Muslims and other minority students amounted to a "witch-hunt".
But what do you call a witch hunt which keeps finding witches ?

Of course, this isn't the first example of academics paling around with Islamofascists, but there's something even more basic than that here.
The motion, from the union's transitional arrangements committee, expressed outrage at the "continuing escalation demonisation of Muslim and other minority communities", adding that this threatened to impinge on education.

It opposed the ethnic profiling of students and staff, and pledged to challenge the "incursions of the security and immigration services to university and college campuses".
Never mind wondering what 'other minority communities' keep blowing things up, let's just think about the unique form of English on display: 'incursions' - British law enforcement enforcing the law in Britain.

No wonder these folks get on so well with the Islamofascists, they have exactly the same attitudes. They'll take all the benefits of citizenship, while rejecting even the most basic of duties, like reporting a crime in progress. Ditto, they'll scream like a singed cat should anyone seek to enforce the law of the land on campus, but we can keep on sending them money by the truckload.

Hey, don't get me wrong here. I'm all for academic freedom. In fact, I think it's so important we should go the whole way. True, wacademics have already made a start by announcing that the slaughter of their fellow citizens is nowt to do with them, but now it's time for academics to free themselves of the final constraint of the UKKK government: yep, it's time to stop sponging off the taxpayer and enjoy the freedom of paying for their own lunacy.

Just Fancy That!

Tory MP Graham Brady is taken out and shot after questioning Ayatollah Khamerooni's fatwa on schooling, but it turns out that for some people, dissent really is the highest form of patriotism.

Well, They Are Liberals

Janet Daly on the Cameroonatics:

Team Cameron, meanwhile, sinks deeper into utter confusion and incoherence. On the one hand, it insists that the past week's political nightmare (including the chorus of attacks from critics like me) has been just what it wanted; on the other, it bursts into floods of tears and accuses me of being nasty and unhelpful for pointing out the potholes in its own road to the future. Conservative spokesmen are apparently allowed to say vindictive and merciless things about the way middle-class parents raise their children, but those who take the assault personally must remain constructive and helpful in their response.
Actually, the Cameroonatics have surprised me in one respect: they haven't found a suitable victim yet. I guessing next time their policies will be unveiled by a mother whose son was eaten by a grammar school boy, so we won't be allowed to challenge even her most idiotic statements as that would mean questioning the authenticity of her suffering.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Best PM We Never Had ?

If only this guy had been running things...

Yep, That Covers It

More wisdow from St Ann:
The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn't going to hardworking Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms — and who are having trouble getting jobs, now that they're forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don't pay taxes.

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Tories Ask: Why Won't Any Of You Psychos Vote For Us ?

See, this isn't me - I'm just linking. Still, it does raise an interesting question. The Tories always claim that there's no need for disillusioned rightists to vote for UKIP because their policies are practically the same as the Tories anyway. But at the same time, they claim everyone in UKIP is completely insane. So which is it ? Is UKIP practically the same as the Tory Party, or is it a collection of lunatics ? And can we draw any conclusions from the fact that a bunch of complete headcases have - by the Tories own description - come up with exactly the same policies as the Tories ? Or is it - and this is the option I favour - proof that having based their entire stategy on media stunts and aping the Left, the Cameroonatics are incapable of formulating any actual arguments more sophisticated than 'You're nutsl!' ?

Liberty Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does

Moonlighting again, all of which lead me to a revelation. Folks say the reason why the British dextrosphere hasn't taken off like the US one is that our media isn't quite as monolithically Leftist as the US one. I'm not sure I'd accept that, but it is true that rightist Brit bloggers seem to lack the sense of mission of their American equivalents. Maybe we don't need to balance the media so much as balance the cesspit of QUANGOs, NGOs and FREAKSHOWs that the Left uses to launder its nuttiness, as exemplified by a civil liberties group that pals around with fascists while ignoring the government's humpty-dumpty definition of hate speech.

How To Defeat Racism By Eating People

In case you missed it, the Charlene Downes trial started this week. I guess allegations of a young girl being abducted, sexually tortured, murdered then eaten weren't considered newsworthy by the MSM - not when there's real stories like this to cover. Still, even the need for 24/7 hog updates doesn't explain why those few reports that did make it into print have all slanted the same way. Hey, maybe the press needed to dial down the sensationalism and the speculation, but who'd have thunk that the only time the British press would get their Scully on would feature a native British victim ? Oh right - everyone on the planet, plus some passing insectoids.

Of course, this is the Catch 22 of the whole case. While the MSM steadfastly refuses to give the case the coverage it deserves, right bloggers take up the slack - and Tottenham Lad lists a few here - which will then allow the MSM to hint darkly that the case has become a cause celebre for the extreme right, the far right and the totally mega right, and so - gosh darn it! - the only responsible thing to do is not to report it at all.

This is how insane modern Liberalism is. Liberals think we should ignore racial violence lest - merely by reporting it - we stir up racism. So the only way to fight racism is to acquiesce to it. Uh huh! I guess this is why Liberals never talk about Stephen Lawrence or Anthony Walker. Meanwhile, I confidently predict that even after publishing this, the House of Dumb will maintain its proud tradition of being a cannibalism-free zone.

And there's more too:
Charlene was one of a number of young white girls who went to have sex with older men who worked in the fast food shops, Tim Holroyde QC, prosecuting, told the jury.

Charlene, of Buchanan Street, in Blackpool, was "well and happy", the court heard, but her home life was "chaotic".

Expelled from school, she spent her time hanging around shops on Blackpool Promenade, and was last seen in the early evening of Saturday, November 1 2003.
Let's see that again:
Charlene was one of a number of young white girls who went to have sex with older men who worked in the fast food shops, Tim Holroyde QC, prosecuting, told the jury.

Charlene, of Buchanan Street, in Blackpool, was "well and happy", the court heard, but her home life was "chaotic".

Expelled from school, she spent her time hanging around shops on Blackpool Promenade, and was last seen in the early evening of Saturday, November 1 2003.
As Laban says, we've been this way before. Come to think of it, looks like the femiloons will have to change their slogan to 'Zero tolerance for violence against nice, well-educated women'. Well, either that or they've been shuffling the pack again.

Friday, May 25, 2007

The Classy Left (Part 4628)

Here's the Guardian on the Conrad Black trial:
This ladies and gentlemen, is what a Get Out of Jail Free card looks like in human form. Consider Alana Black, daughter of beleaguered media tycoon Conrad. Did you know he had a daughter? Nope, me neither, but here she is, being wheeled out, in what her dad must hope is the nick of time. Barbara Amiel’s efforts in the court audience haven’t quite reflected so well on Conrad, as is often the way when an accused’s spouse is present. She might have muted her usual haute - couture tendencies into boring brown suits, but her fondness for shouting at journalists hasn’t really given her husband the required respectable image. So now Alana is pushed forth, and very well she’s doing too: the pencil skirt and blouse are elegant, but not obnoxiously so, and the beaded necklace doesn’t rub her and her father’s wealth in the jurors’ faces in the same way as Amiel’s Hermes bags do. And that hair ! ‘Come on,’ it all but shrieks. ‘No man accused of fraud could possibly have fathered such angelic locks, surely
Or, you know, it could just be that she's a daughter supporting her father in his - literal - time of trial. What exactly is the point of the Guardian's snark anyway ? That Alana Black is somehow underhand for not behaving like a Guardian stereotype of the evil rich ? Talk about a Catch 22. When the rich light huge cigars with £50 notes, they're scum, and when they don't, they're lying scum. I guess the only answer is to live the simple peasant life - just like the Guardian's editor does.


Our former DPM has a whole page at Wikipedia dedicated to his screw-ups - and yes, it is quite big.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Existential Elephants Or BBC Bias ?

The BBC covers the strange case of an elephant in a Berlin zoo which freaked out and tried to kill her calf. In order to explain this, the BBC quotes 'wildlife expert' Ian Redmond:
Some people think it could be a conscious decision," says Mr Redmond. "If their quality of life is poor and they are faced with just a concrete yard, they don't want their offspring to face the same and kill them. But it's just a theory.
Yes, the elephants are suffering from existential angst over this meaningless farce that we call 'life'. Hey, there's anthropomorphism, and then there's plain lunacy - even if you are just quoting 'some people'.

But who is 'wildlife expert' Ian Redmond anyway ? The BBC notes that he works for the Born Free Foundation, but doesn't tell us anything about who they actually are, which does mean something important is left out:
The Horsham-based charity focused initially on the plight of animals in zoos and circuses but now fights to protect dozens of species in their natural habitats.

"Freedom is a precious concept, and wild animals suffer physically and mentally from the lack of freedom captivity imposes," McKenna said.
Yep, the BBC quotes a 'wildlife expert' who blames the incident on the zoo itself, without telling us he is someone campaigning to close down zoos. Who'd have thunk it ?

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Click to enlarge, if needs be. More demotivational fun at

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Missing The Point

Can't say I totally buy into this grammar school nostalgia, but still, at least they have the right enemies. With the Boy King launching his Jihad against grammar schools, the BBC - totally by coincidence, I'm sure - posts a piece by an unidentified 'mother' detailing how the evil middle classes manipulate the admissions system for grammar schools so the ordinary kid in the street doesn't have a chance. Boo hoo!

Trouble is that the article doesn't make a lick of sense. OK, Libs, rich folks are manipulating the admission system for good schools. Well, here's my answer: let's set up an objective test of ability for post-11 education. I don't know what we'd call it, but at least it'd be a better predictor than counting oboe lessons. Which is more or less what we have now in decent non-grammars.

That's missing the wider point though. There's only this desperate rush towards decent schools because the government allows shameless rigging of the market - you know, the sort of thing that's highly illegal in just about every other context. Education's important, but so's food and you don't have to live off baked beans just cause you didn't get your name down for Tesco early enough.

See, that's what sticks in the throat about the BBC's attempt at class war. If the BBC really wants to target a privileged class manipulating the education system for their own ends, why doesn't it investigate the teaching unions ?

Not in this lifetime.

Nuance Patrol

See, I was going cold turkey, but then Ross pointed out the latest iteration in the Brit Blogosphere's most bitter feud: the one between Iain Dale and Iain Dale. So now I've just got to mention a truly bizarre post from last week.

Yep, Dale hopes Jerry Falwell 'rots in hell'. Why ? His nasty rhetoric, of course. Ah yes!

Dale does find the perfect quote to sum up Falwell's nuttiness - too perfect, in fact. Dale quotes Falwell saying this:

[Homosexuals are] brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.
Trouble is that approximately 6 seconds with google reveals that [Homosexuals are] isn't. Falwell didn't mention blokes who run antique shops with a close friend, he was talking specifically about the Metropolitan Community Church - an only-in-America gay cult which teaches a version of Christianity where - how can I put this ? - Jesus moves on from the bread and wine, straight onto the beefcake.

Hey, I'm no theologian, but I'm guessing a poor prognosis for those who teach a blasphemous parody of Christianity in order to promote the commission of mortal sins may not be just Falwell's own idiosyncratic take on the religion.

Equally, it's worth noting that Falwell made that comment during a heated radio debate with the MCC. It was hardly a pre-mediated statement of doctrine. In reality, Falwell was never the carpet-chewing maniac that he is often depicted as. Consider that he received warm tributes from, of all people, Larry Flynt and Al Sharpton. That's not to say you'd necessarily want to live next door to him, but which side of the spectrum is it that keeps yattering about nuance ?

Still, if these are the new rules, then this blogging game is going to get a lot easier or, as Dale once said, 'I hope [Christians] rot in hell'.

Am I Missing Something ?

Since when does a democratically-elected government has to go cap in hand to a bunch of public servants, asking them if they could possibly, y'know, see their way to obeying the lawful orders of Parliament ?

Whasszat ? I hear a whimpering in the corner. Mr Liberal would like to point out that having an unelected cliché of moonbats decide that the law is whatever they say it is, provides a vital safeguard against tyranny. Fine then Libs: vote against the pols next time round, but - sauce for the goose - how exactly do we get to pour constitutional bleach down the stinky u-bend of a loony Left infested legal system ?

Day of Glory

Yep, we now have a leader of the Conservative Party who uses 'right-wing' as an insult.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Today's Steynism

The issue is not how to make the chaps in Brussels more "accountable," but why all that stuff is being dealt with in Brussels in the first place - why so much of what Tocqueville regarded as primary-school science can only be entrusted to the men in white coats back at the laboratory. Eurocrats who spent much of the Eighties mocking President Reagan's "trickle-down economics" are happy to put their faith in trickle-down nation-building: If you create the institutions of a European state, a European state will somehow take root underneath.

Viva Free Market

See, this is why the free market beats government intervention. The government is free to pretend that a guy doing 32 on a dual carriageway at 6 AM on a Sunday morning is exactly the same as Jack the Ripper, but the folks whose living depends on accurately assessing risks are telling a different story. So much for the idea that Big Government is needed to correct distortions in the market.

Liberals Scraping Bottom

Just remember, when Liberals complain about torture, this is what they mean

Sunday, May 20, 2007

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Now that David Aaronovitch has helpfully explained how that whole 'national identity' thing is a myth - except where the nation concerned has a lot of oranges - expect a whole bunch more of this.

Hey, the MSM has been telling us for years that there's no difference between a native Briton and Somalia militiaman running down the steps at Heathrow. Let's have some sauce for this goose. After all, if journalists need to be physically present to report on an event, well, let's just say that the daily paper's going to be a lot smaller. So let's raise a glass to the brave new world of reporting: cheaper, harder working and, most of all, vibrant!

Friday, May 18, 2007

Better Than A Money Tree

Get a cross-selling agreement with a teaching union and you could hire Bill Gates as your errand boy. It's what the world's been waiting for.

Another Reason To Like Mr Broon

Couple of interesting posts over at Guido's place. First up, it looks like Call Me Dave has started recruiting amongst his natural supporters. But there's also this.

I mean, seriously, WTF ? Yes, I know Liberals long ago abandoned making sense, but there's not even any kind of actual point here. OK, it could be a reference to those rumours, but even then what's the point ? As a basic starting point, I'm thinking satire should be a) funny and b) say something. You'd be hard pushed to get anything other than 'I hate Gordon' out of this drivel. Five year olds can make more coherent charges than this.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

He's A Keys Source

Like millions of people, I was absolutely transfixed by the news Prince Harry was staying home. Except not really. No, what intrigued me was that the BBC report includes commentary from Reg Keys.

Actually, that's not so surprising: he seems to pop up a lot on the BBC. You may be wondering what insights he can offer to justify so much coverage. Well, it's like this: his son was killed in Iraq. There's a natural sympathy for those left behind, but with 148 dead in the war, you have to question why exactly the BBC's contacts file only has the one name in it.

Oops... no, you don't. We're in Cindy Sheehan territory here. What's are the odds hey ? Who'd have thunk that the BBC's on-call relative would be a raving moonbat ? And, by the way, what's the statute of limitations here ? Just how many appearance fees do you have to collect before you make the leap from 'grieving relative' to 'Left-wing activist' ?

Meanwhile, I'm left dealing with another conundrum. Is there any relationship between the folks who think the ranting of Keys is a vital contribution to the debate, and the people who think making victim-impact statements admissible in court is the end of British justice ?


Kudos to NK over at Biased-BBC who noted the BBC's anorexic contacts file back in February.

The Tories New Plan: Different But The Same

Crivens! Ollie Letwin is hacked off with people mocking the empty suit he works for and he's not going to stand for it anymore! Not when he's got a whole article to tell us how incredibly SMART Cameron is. Hey, isn't that like telling people how handsome you are ?

But let's avoid these minor stupidities and jump straight into the gaping void of Tory ideology.
Cameron Conservatism, so far from being merely a set of attitudes, has a specific theoretical agenda. It aims to achieve two significant paradigm-shifts.
Well, that's me off to a flyer! Of course, the real question is will Cameron be leveraging synergies to reengineer core processes ?
First, a shift from an econocentric paradigm to a sociocentric paradigm. Secondly, a shift in the theory of the State from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm.
It all goes back to Marx. Before Marx, politics was multidimensional – constitutional, social, environmental as well as economic. Marx changed all that. After Marx, socialists defended socialism and free marketeers defended capitalism. For both sides, the centrepiece of the debate was the system of economic management. Politics became econocentric.
That Churchill, he was all about the taxes.
But, as we begin the 21st century, things have changed. Since Margaret Thatcher, and despite recurrences of something like full-blooded socialism in Latin America, the capitalist/ socialist debate has in general ceased to dominate modern politics. From Beijing to Brussels, the free market has won the battle of economic ideas.
Brussels as an exemplar of the free market ? Relative to what ? North Korea ?
If the free market is a matter of consensus, the debate must change its nature. Instead of arguing about systems of economic management, we have to discuss how to make better lives out of the prosperity that the free market generates.
Leave aside that the central premise is wrong, this is just the college-educated version of the same reasoning that makes these people think it's cute to claim Cameron is rubbish at basic business. Silver-spoon toting wasters sneering at the proles for aspiring to a better life. It's easy to be contemptuous of money when you've got it by the sack load.

There's a deeper point here though. Don't concentrate on making money, say the Cameroonatics, make the world a better place instead. When the hell did they become mutually exclusive ? There's no better to get rich than to find what the public needs and supply it. If a guy finds a way to cure cancer with vinegar, he'll get filthy rich, but I don't think anyone will mind. True, occasionally idiots end up with undeserved success, such as when they end up leading the Tories instead of being out on the street with a sign saying 'Will Lie For Food', but if we're after social benefits, I'll take a busload of entrepreneurs over any number of sneery, superior rich kids like the Cameroonatics.
The first theoretical advance (the first paradigm shift) of Cameron Conservatism is to see that fact clearly – to refocus the debate, to change the terms of political trade, to ask a different set of questions. Politics – once econocentric – must now become sociocentric.
Hmmm.... Conservatives thinking about social issues ? Now why does that ring a bell ?
But Cameron Conservatism is also an attempt to shift the theory of the State from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm. The provision-theory of the modern State is the successor to socialism in the postMarxist era. It is the essence of Gordon Brown’s version of new Labour.
Back in Dilbert country.
The provision-theory accepts the free market as the engine of economic growth. But, just as Clause Four socialism once saw the State as the proper provider of goods and services through ownership of the means of production, so the provision-theorists of Brownian new Labour see the central State not only as the funder but also as the proper provider of public services. They also see the central State as the only possible guarantor of wellbeing through direction and control.
Again, with the 'huh' ? Plenty of folks - Laban for one - have chronicled just how much of the voluntary sector is already on the government's payroll. What's his next idea ? An independent Bank of England ?
The tell-tale marks of provision-theory are to be seen in much of the record of the last ten years – the targets and directives, the reorganisations, schemes and initiatives. Direct government intervention has been brought – with the best of intentions, though often with notable lack of success – to bear on schools and hospitals, police officers and neighbourhoods, local authorities and universities. The State has been seen as the source of enlightened social action, just as it was once seen as the source of enlightened economic action.

The Cameron Conservative framework-theory of the State is fundamentally different. It takes the same place in the sociocentric debate of the 21st century that free market theory once took before it triumphed in, and outdated, the econocentric debate of the 20th century.
Except, in so far as the Tories aren't going to privatise the police, hospitals, councils and schools, the analogy doesn't even get out of the starting gate. It's just same ol' horses, same ol' glue.
The framework theory of the modern State sees government as having two basic roles: to guarantee the stability and security upon which, by common consent, both the free market and wellbeing depend; and, much more controversially, to establish a framework of support and incentive that enables and induces individuals and organisations to act in ways that fulfil not merely their own self-interested ambitions but also their wider social responsibilities.
Since when did Conservatives sneer at self-interest ? Isn't the whole point that Conservatism doesn't require people to self-immolate to fulfil 'wider social responsibilities' ?

We're back to the earlier point: the business of business is business. If they weren't supplying a socially-useful service they'd go bust. Well, unless they secured one of those government outsourcing contracts that Letwin seems so keen on.

True, businesses have to fork over cash for vital services such as killing terrorists, but that's that. It's that double-dipping again. The Cameroonatics want to keep squeezing people and businesses dry with high taxes, then they want to turn round and shift responsibilities onto everyone else, so you'll still pay high taxes, and your kids still won't learn anything but it'll be Tesco's fault for not being socially-responsible.
It is in emphasising this second duty of government that Cameron Conservatism distinguishes itself radically from Brownian new Labour.
Yep, Brown was never that far Left.
Cameron Conservatism puts no faith in central direction and control. Instead, it seeks to identify social and environmental responsibilities that participants in the free market are likely to neglect, and then establish frameworks that will lead people and organisations to act of their own volition in ways that will improve society by increasing general wellbeing.
Muggers should try that. They're not robbing people, they're establishing a framework where people hand over their wallet of their own volition.
The intuitions about human nature that underpin this framework-theory of the modern State are unsurprisingly the same as the intuitions about human nature that underpinned free market theory in 20th-century econocentric politics.
Except for the, y'know, 'free' part of the equation.
The first intuition is that human enterprise, initiative, vocation and morale are the things that lead to progress and sustainable success in the socioenvironmental sphere, just as in the economic sphere.
Gosh, you mean there's a lot of overlap between running a successful hospital and running a business ? Who'd have thunk it ?
The second, allied intuition is that command and control systems eventually fall under their own weight because they stifle enterprise, initiative, vocation and morale.
Bad systems!
And the third intuition is that a framework that leads people to fulfil their social responsibilities of their own volition in their own ways is a much more powerful engine for sustained socioenvironmental success than direct government control.
Is it just me, or is anyone else thinking of the 'cow' joke ? Apparently, 'framework' means instead of the government taking the cows, they'll let you look after them and just take all the milk instead.
Will the framework-theory based on these liberal conservative intuitions come in time to win the battle of ideas in sociocentric politics as comprehensively as its precursor, liberal conservative free market theory, did in the old econocentric political debates?
Leaving aside the possibility of a massive, nationwide, lobotomy: no!
It is too early to tell. But one thing is clear. Cameron Conservatives have both an analysis of the nature of 21st-century politics and a theory of the role of the modern State. To win a battle of ideas is always a hard task. But having an idea is certainly a good starting point.
Pity it's Gordon Brown's idea really. This is the point I keep making. At least with Brown you're getting the real thing, not a warped cover version. All Cameroonacy really boils down to is that they'll keep the elephantine state, but if things still suck, it's nowt to do with them, 'cause they've created a framework, doncha'know ?

This Is Why People Talk About 'Dual Loyalty'

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Equally, even though anti-Semitism has now become so mainstream, it can only be a matter of time until at least one uni makes the Protocols of Zion a set text, that doesn't mean there isn't a malignant strain in Jewish culture. Consider the latest from David Aaronovitch.

Aaronovitch thinks immigration laws are sooooooo last century. We need to embrace the cosmopolitan 'if this is Tuesday, I must be Brazilian' lifestyle. Britain's just a place, and British culture is just the aggregate of whoever's passing through at the time.

Funnily enough, even while dismissing the idea of a common culture, Aaronovitch still manages to dismiss the British as collectively lazy. But that's a mere trifle compared to the honking great contradiction in his article. Isn't there some place in the Middle East which has its own immigration issues ? How come Davey-Boy doesn't want Israel to throw open its borders ? Aren't the Palis just people too ? Isn't one culture just as bogus as the other ? And how seriously should we take a guy who claims to be British, yet is so unconcerned about the effects of open borders on Britain, even while warning against the self-same policies somewhere else ?

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Guardian of Public Morals

UK Daily Pundit catches 'top Tory blogger' Iain Dale spinning for the BBC. Who'd have thunk it ? Amusingly enough though, Dale pops up in the comments to complain about the author's 'disgraceful' language. Yep, if there's one thing Dale can't stand, it's harsh language.


Post up on TWA, all about the clash between an evil cult and the Church of Scientology

Monday, May 14, 2007

The Nu Tories: Striving For A Classless Society

Top Tory blogger - and A-Lister - Iain Dale shows us some of that Nu Tory sofistikaytion in the comments to this post:
Oddball, let me say one thing to you. Just F*** off.
The *** are mine by the way, so remember, when Call Me Dave asks for your vote, it's because folks like this know how to spend your money better than you do.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

And Another Thing....

Leaving aside Cameron's disgraceful - and utterly predictable - descent into dhimmitude, there's something else that hacks me off about this. Are we supposed to find it cute that Cameron claims to have been rubbish at serving in the shop ?

OK, so it's garbage. That's point one. Seriously, if you were a recently crashed alien looking to earn money for parts for his craft, wouldn't you be able to figure out the basics of the job ? But more than another cripplingly weak attempt at folksiness, consider what it says about the folks running the Conservative Party.

Here's a group of people who market themselves as the Smartest People In The Universe, but they think it's stylish to pretend to be baffled by commerce. Call Me Dave would never pretend to be ignorant of Shakespeare or art, but the stuff that keeps the country running ? Pah! Like you'd expect him to know about that!

Don't Mention The War

See, this is what I was on about here. Whatever Blair did or did not do, he at least recognised that leadership should be about more than the merely tactical. Cameron never met an issue he couldn't skate over. Even so, this latest example is special.

Yep, the Bogotá Skier spent 48 hours with some Muslims, and came out singing the national anthem of Dhimmia. To understand the true lunacy of this, simply consider what it would presumably have taken for him to take the opposite approach. How about finding a secret trapdoor that lead to Bin Laden's hideout in the basement ? Would he have demanded internment ?

But no: Dhimmi Dave failed to trip over any fugitive terrorists, AK47s or capsules labelled 'Danger! Biohazard!' so now he's resurrected one of the stupidest of dhimmi clichés:
It’s hard to over-emphasise the importance of language. I know it sounds like a side issue, but it isn’t. We are just not getting this right. Every time the BBC or a politician talks about “Islamist terrorists” they are doing immense harm (and yes I am sure I have done this too, despite trying hard to get this right.) Think of Northern Ireland – “IRA terrorist” was fine because it marked them out as part of a terrorist group, Catholic terrorists would have been a disaster. Yet that is the equivalent of what we are doing now.
As far as the specifics go, Laban has already beaten this idiocy to death. Ditto, I'll pass over the oddity of just how often dhimmis claim that Muslims are peaceful, except that if you say something they don't like, they'll blow up the No 27. No, there's a deeper idiocy here, something deeper even than Cameron's ignorance of the greatest issue of the age.

Cameron is not merely claiming that we should ignore Islamofascism, or that Islamic savagery is the fault of the West, nope - in Cameronworld, simply calling things what they are makes you the guilty party. It's a position that manages to be simultaneously squalid, absurd and totalitarian. Certainly, it strikes at the heart of Conservatism.

Could it get any stupider ? Well, yes: with Call Me Dave, stupider is not just possible, it's inevitable. In this case, it's the revelation that the family he visited lives in the gritty, urban hell of a six-bedroomed detached house, overlooking Warwickshire Country Cricket ground. Hmmmmm.... let's check that 'global warming' photo op again. Are we sure he went to the Artic, or did he just go out on the Yorkshire moors for the day ?

Friday, May 11, 2007

Sympathy For The Devil

Say what you like about Blair, but at least he recognised that there were big questions in the world today. True, his answers usually stank, but that beats you-know-who, with his firm belief that objective reality is a myth conjured up by ideologues and fanatics.

Anyway, as Dave reminds me in the comments here, Hot Air has a Blair highlights reel. Watch and reflect on the Greatest PM We Never Had.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Quote D'Jour

Allahpundit the Great on the Left:
This is a useful example of why it’s pointless to engage the left. Not only do they act in bad faith, they justify it by attributing bad faith to their target.... That’s why being pro-life is really about “controlling women’s bodies,” why opposing affirmative action is a backdoor attempt to reinstate Jim Crow, etc. etc. There’s always a malign motive or an evil conspiracy to be found if you squint hard enough. Why do you think so many Truthers skew left?

Scaredy-Cat Sioux

I didn't bother to watch the BBC's Panorama program last night. Just the fact it was advertised as covering 'white flight' was enough for me. Can anyone name any other times when native people have been cleansed from their ancestral lands and Libs have put the blame on them ?

Monday, May 07, 2007


Via Ed, it turns out that Mark Steyn is blogging the Conrad Black trial. Who cares ? Well, the trial does raise important points, but mostly there's the chance to read Steyn at his most Steynesque.

RSPCA Stag Hunt

You know, some days I wonder if these guys are being completely honest with us....

As I Was Saying...

Also neatly coming under the heading of 'And you're one too' is the latest from the Bottom Inspectors. Apparently, it is now fascist to oppose obtrusive government bureaucracies. Yep, Il Duce was well known for his commitment to privacy laws.

The Left's New Argument: You're One Too!!!!!

Of course, as Bill Clinton would say, it depends what the meaning of 'new' is. The Guardian's Caroline Bennett has had a revelation about the war on terror. She's realised that there are traitors amongst us. And all this while working at the Guardian too. Isn't that like a guy at Ford blowing the lid on this whole 'cars' thing ? But no: at least she got there eventually, and she's speaking out, exposing the enemy within, the worm in the apple, the Sheikh Haw-Haws, the dirty rats, the fifth columists....

Well, basically it's us. Yep, that's her revelation: Islamofascists criticise the decadence of western civilisation, so do Social Conservatives, therefore we're just like Islamofascists. Of course, for this to be anything other than a reductio ad Mohamidum, Bennett would have to show examples of Socio-Cons actually sympathising with the Islamopaths. Does she ? Well, consider her examples of Rightist enemy sympathisers: Patrick Mercer, Norman Lebrecht and Bel Mooney. So that's a Cameroonatic already slapped around for crimes against PC, a music critic and an ecoloon ex-New Statesman hack. True, there's the obligatory jibe at the Daily Mail, but not only has the Mail been notoriously weak on the war anyway, it's most famous scold is Melanie Phillips, not hitherto known for her Islamofascist sympathies.

It's the same story all over. Look at America's Michelle Malkin, a firm critic of both the 'Girls Gone Wild' culture and Islamofascism. Ditto, Robert Ferrigno's 'Prayers for the Assassin', unflinching in its depiction of the essential evil of Islam, while still being alive to the attractions. Indeed, in so far as Bennett seems to be suggesting that anyone who seems any good qualities at all in Islamofascism is clearly a collaborator, then it's tempting to ask where the nuance went ?

At least, it would be tempting to mock Bennett's lack of nuance if her position wasn't so blatantly tactical. Bennett - supposed scourge of Islamoappeasers - can't even get through her first sentence without doing the dhimmi-dance:
Although we shall never know how the Prophet would have received a plan to blow up "slags" in a London nightclub....
Dang! If only there was some kind of book.....

Here's a free clue: if you're writing an article criticising other people for soft-pedalling on Islam, it's probably not such a good idea to gloss over the misogyny and homicidal insanity of its founder.

Even leaving aside the humbuggery of Bennett's position, the thesis is absurd: Islamofascists contrast the rigid doctrine of their cult with the depravity of the West, so western critics of Islamofascism should stop talking about morality ? Huh ? Isn't that like saying you can't criticise the animal rights nutters and oppose badger baiting ?

As it happens, a good proportion of anti-dhimmis speak out on moral issues precisely because they believe that the cultural collapse of western civilisation leaves it vulnerable to totalitarian insanities like Islam. Look at Mr Bean, Jabbah Turley and the rest of the 'frightened 15' for proof of that.

We're back to what I wrote about when Ferrigno's book first came out, and the March for Free Expression was hurtling towards farce. Liberals disparage traditional morality as irrational and self-evidently absurd, but where's the evidence for their lifestyle ? Civilisation has been around long enough now for us to have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't. In that sense, traditional morality is just the accumulated wisdom of ages on how to run a society. It's the post-1960s consensus that's arbitrary and unsupported. Are we really living in the one moment of human history where everything that we've ever known about successful cultures no longer applies ?

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

4/29 Truthers ?

Ironically enough, while the 7/7 Truthers have been turning the insania up to 11, over in the US a recent truck crash has not only neatly debunked one of the wackiest planks in the arguments of their Truthers, it has allowed folks to have a bit of fun. It's not only Fark: ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 4/29 Truthers.


Off on a tangent, this is still the best, and also possibly the most NSFW, debunking of the Truthers.

Normal Service Has Resumed

In so far as Liberals are now claiming to be enraged that MI5 didn't take Islamic terrorism seriously enough, you'd think our born-again hawks could at least try and feign an interest in this case. But no - it's dropped off the front page faster than a Liberal fleeing a job in the private sector. I guess the essential ridiculousness of Liberals claiming to be 007 has struck even them, hence their reversion to type as the Basil Fawltys of foreign policy ('don't mention the war').

Cameron: Your 'No Offence' War leader

In case you were wondering just why the Tories response to recent explosive affairs has been so lame - when it hasn't been just plain unhinged - it may be at least partially because they threw their experienced Homeland Security spokesman, ex-soldier Patrick Mercer, under the bus after he fell foul of the race hustlers. I guess that's the Tory line: they shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, unless the cost is a stinging leader column in the Guardian, in which case all bets are off. Certainly, there's no reason why anyone dealing with homeland security would need to embroil himself in any difficult racial issues, right ?

When Good Men Go Bad

OK, so his former Chief of Staff, Iain Dale, has certainly flirted with these loons, but it's still depressing to see David Davis using the T-word. What can I say, except cue Eric!

Lest We Forget

While the Libs try and convince us that it someone else who spent all that time telling us that 'Islamic terrorism' was a myth conjured up by the BushChimpler, his poodle Tony and the VRWC, let's revisit the words of one of Britain's top Liberals:
The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these
Quick - someone phone Lenny and ask if terrorism is a real threat yet. Needless to say, this insanity was immediately hailed by the Left as their own version of Henry V's speech at Agincourt (but better!). Apparently, Liberals take a tough line on terror the same way they support the troops, namely by doing the exact opposite to what any sane person would recommend.

The point is that Lord Loony didn't come out with these comments after a heavy night on the claret. No, this was one of the nation's law lords, speaking while striking down terrorism legislation (for the nth time). Or, to put it another way, one of the nation's top judges was sitting on the bench with a double-layer of tin foil under his wig. Maybe we need an enquiry into how these kooks get on the bench in the first place ?

Here's the essential difference between Left and Right. The Left's theory goes something like this: MI-5 detected the July 7 bombers, something, something, something, and so they let them attack unhindered. Meanwhile, we on the Right argue that it was the determination of moonbat judges to give, and keep giving, known terrorists 'access all areas' passes for Britain - even to the point of carving absurd 'human rights' out of whole cloth - that meant that MI-5 was swamped to the point where there were no resources left to deal with apparently peripheral figures like the July 7 bombers. But don't expect the MSM to refer to that version of events - after all, it's a little 'out there' for them.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Oooh.... That'll Leave A Mark

You have to be impressed with the way the very people who spent their time claiming Islamic terrorism was a myth, have effortlessly shifted to producing hysterical denunciations of MI-5 for not taking the threat seriously enough. And when I say 'impressed', I mean in the sense of 'nauseated'.

Even knowing the shamelessness of the Libs, it's still a shock to the system to see just how hard the BBC is pushing that line. Doubtless, they'll be returning their awards for 'The Power of Nightmares' anytime now. Right ?

But here's the thing. Here's how the world has changed. Despite the MSM's wall of noise, folks aren't buying it anymore. Check out the BBC's own forum on this subject. Normally, the BBC boards are a infinity of insania, plus 10. Not today though:

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 16:22 GMT 17:22 UK

Should there be an inquiry?

No, as the problem has already been ID'd - too few personnel to keep track of all the jihadis infesting these shores.

As for the reaction, well isn't it time this PC government took of its self imposed shackles and started to deport the theocratic preachers of hate (if non-nationals, if nationals jail for 30 years) regardless of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the loony left?

Time for visas to visit Pakistan.

Malcolm, London UK

Recommended by 244 people

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 16:18 GMT 17:18 UK

Why bother with an enquiry at great public expence? the Security Services are doing the best job they can, struggling against all the legal hurdles this government has put in their way - RIPA, Human Rights Act - if they tried to do something about every individual terrorist plotting against the Uk then the Courts would only hold them back. Well done for foiling this one, and the many others we dont hear about!

capelkarl, folkestone

Recommended by 90 people

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 21:45 GMT 22:45 UK

I'd be more interested in an enquiry into the extent of fanatical beliefs amongst British Muslims and the changes we need to make to our immigration, asylum and deportation laws to ensure that as many of these people as possible are expelled from this country. According the the Home Office's own figures, there are thousands - possibly tens of thousands - of people with similar beliefs to these five at liberty in the UK, waiting for the opportunity to carry out similar attacks.

Anthony Karas

Recommended by 85 people

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 18:43 GMT 19:43 UK

A public inquiry into why unlinked unknown people with unknown objectives took unexpected actions - pointless!!
Don't worry if MI5 get canned over this the BBC journalists can take over security for the country as obviously they are so much better at finding the answers!!
Dead easy to link everything up when there's no pressure two years on isn't it it's about time the BBC got back to reporting the news not making it nor trying to make their own interpretations as the facts.


Recommended by 74 people

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 20:45 GMT 21:45 UK

Why? So that millions of pounds can be wasted to tell us that a group of Muslim young men were indoctrinated by extremists to the point where mass murder of innocent people seemed like a legitimate religious duty.

MI5 will have to divert resource to this enquiry, so when another bomb goes off they will tell us that they were so busy with the enquiry that they missed another terrorist plot.

Then we will be told by Muslim apologists that it was all our own fault anyway.

No thanks.

Karen, Bourne

Recommended by 60 people

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 20:43 GMT 21:43 UK

Amazing! Thanks to the British media, I now know the reason London was attacked. It was attacked because of MI5. Not because of some fanatical lunatics who hailed but a few miles from me. No it was all the establishments fault.

God how the media make me puke. It gives oxygen to the fanatics who spread fanatasism throughout the land, then it blasts MI5 for not having the resources to track all the lunatics.

Craig, Leeds, UK

Recommended by 59 people

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 21:43 GMT 22:43 UK

The Security Services did a brilliant job in preventing a horrific massacre and the left wing media’s reaction is to apportion blame and call for an inquiry. Blame the terrorists, why don’t you? I say the cops and MI5 are heroes and the media with their insidious accusations at a time when praise and congratulations are in order make me ashamed of the free press. Free to side with the terrorist enemy is an abuse of press freedom. The press just encourages the terrorists in our midst. Print that.

Tim H, UK

Recommended by 53 people

Added: Tuesday, 1 May, 2007, 10:29 GMT 11:29 UK

No, there shouldn't be an inquiry. The people concerned should be left to get on with their jobs.

These deaths were NOT caused by MI5 or the Police or the Government. They were caused by muslims, specifically British muslims. If there is an inquiry it should be into why these people did not assimilate into the natural culture of this country, and why so many muslim leaders are afraid to speak out and condemn this, when they are so quick to condemn everything else.

Phil, Lancaster

Recommended by 50 people

Added: Monday, 30 April, 2007, 18:57 GMT 19:57 UK

There should be an inquiry why Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti tried to prevent the deportation of hate preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed when it’s now been shown this evil man was responsible for radicalising at least one of the bomb plotters. Human rights idiots like her should be held as culpable as the terrorists themselves when the PC agenda they push is shown to have aided the plotting of murderous acts - directly or indirectly. Her & her ilk should be facing 40 years locked up too.

Matt Marshall

Recommended by 41 people


I think it was Natalie Solent who asked why, if the science behind anthropogenic global warming was so settled, the pro-warmers needed to do all but send the boys round to anyone who questioned the alleged consensus. Good question - for something that's so self-evidently true, there do appear to be an awful lot of horse heads left in beds. Ace points out another, plus - as a special bonus - it involves St Alvin of Gore.

Things Only Liberals Would Say

Steve points out an article in the Indie, the paper for Guardian readers off their meds. It includes a cracker of a line:
While Japan incarcerates its citizens at less than half the rate of Britain, prison time is notoriously harsh.
Who'd have thunk it ?

Liberals Baffled By 'Time Going Forward' Phenomenon

Islamopaths have been convicted - and in a British court, no less! - for plotting a bit of extreme demonstrating. What's a Lib to do ? It's be tempting to imagine Adam Curtis rushing to produce a follow-up called 'The Power of Really Huge Bombs', but history proves there's no limit to the shamelessness of the Left. Instead, the Left is going with Plan B: OK, we'll admit there are terrorists after all, but it's all the Right's fault.

Needless to say, the Guardian (motto: 'you don't have to be an Islamopath to work here, but it helps') leads off with an article subtlety-titled 'Because British soldiers are killing Muslims'. Hmmm....what is the artist trying to say here ?

Only problem is that even the Guardian has to admit that the timeline is kind of.... well, you know:
The roots of the international conspiracy to mount a bomb attack in the UK, which was intended to kill and maim as many people as possible and cause unprecedented disruption, can be traced to a point long before the war in Iraq.

Several of the plotters had come together in 2001, some had discussed "hitting" British targets before the invasion, and at least one had undergone terrorist training before 9/11.
At this point, Mr Common Sense would like to suggest that maybe it wasn't Iraq after all. Maybe there was some other motivating factor, hmmmm ? Nope - the Libs are way ahead of us here:
The war, however, clearly provided the impetus - or at least the excuse - for a plan to target the UK.
Yep, get that: true, they'd already formed a cell and discussed targets long before Iraq, or even Sep 11, but that was only as part of a jovial, happy kind of terrorism. You've got to have a hobby, right ? Ditto, with the training. Hey, haven't you ever learned to SCUBA on your holidays ? It's just the same. Not everyone wants to lie on the beach all day.

I guess this explains what Liberals mean when they talk about 'the vast majority of peaceful Muslims': folks who've taken post-graduate courses in Martyrdom Studies at Tehran Uni, but haven't actually blown any nightclubs up yet. Seriously, can we check the scorecards here ? Libs won't trust a country GP with a .22 target pistol, but don't see any danger from the guy who won 'Most Homicidal Student, Class of 2000-2001' ? Huh ?

Let's take the Left at their own estimation here. It's perfectly normal for an Islamopath to form a cell with fellow Islamopaths, engage in jovial banter about the mass murder of Infidels and even train with dedicated terrorists. But don't draw any conclusions about Islam from that - that would be Islamophobic.


More on this from Steve


Ross F has more on the Left's problem with premature explanation.