Quote Of The Day

After last night's (near) 'Death Note' incident, I'm going to try something a little different and give you this example of liberal torettes from the Yazzmonster:

There is nothing more pernicious in life to the millions who are unhinged or troubled than the idea of others living lives of perfect contentment.

OK, so she's nuttier than a nutty thing, but she certainly states the left's position more straightforwardly than most: even if you think the country is kind of OK, that just means you must be contributing to someone else's misery, you fascist!

But note the humbuggery too. The Yazzmonster is taking out an onion for all the excluded on the margins of society, yet - as evidenced perfectly by her AMAB ranting - there's no people like leftist people for denouncing whole groups as not just wrong, or even evil, but as savage subhuman degenerates whose very presence pollutes our national life. I'll take a shot in the dark and say that if redundant dads do feel socially excluded, it's no such much the Christmas trees that do it, so much as the mainstreaming of the views of feminazi loons like the Yazzmonster who denounce them as lice to be crushed.

Quote of the Day

The Maha Rushbo on why socialism sucks:

This massive new entitlement is going to obliterate tolerance. This whole notion of live and let live, there isn't going to be any more of that. Every American is going to be looking at neighbors with jealousy, resentment, and anger at whatever medical care he or she receives because not everybody's gonna get the same. That's the way socialism works.

Exactly. The problem with the 'Common Good' isn't just defining what's good - hard enough though that is - it's defining the limits of what's common. Once everything belongs to everybody, then anything that goes to anyone means taking something from everyone. What's the quid pro quo when you're in hock to the whole country?

Audience Participation

I was going to say something about how the Blogger dashboard has improved a lot since I first set this blog up, then I realised that was back in 2003. Kablooey!

Anyway, it's pretty good, and the comments now work. So what do you think? Tastes like chicken? Needs more salt? As the Great Sir Freddie once said: we'll breakfast at Tiffanys, we'll sing to you in Japanese, we're only here to entertain yooooooooooooou.

Work/Train Wreck In Progress...

Alright, the Haloscan commenting system is soon to become a no comments at all system, which means back to Blogger. Except that doesn't work, so I'm guessing my template must die too

All of which means if next time you're here the site is bright yellow, that's why.

This could be a long job....

MSM Journalist Admits: We Suck!

Not in so many words, obviously. Still, it's good to see at least one jouno taking the kool aid IV out of his arm. The only thing is that this raises the obvious question: how does he square this with the MSM's criticism of that naughty old internet?

It turns out that everything those pesky bloggers said was right. The MSM has soft-pedalled on Islam - personally, I think other factors are at play, but let's pretend it was the lawyers wot done it: even if we buy the MSM's argument that some of what's on-line is potentially defamatory, that doesn't make it unreliable. The MSM was happy to use the bogeymen of crazed bloggers smearing innocent terrorists when it suited them, so it's way too late for these people to pose as principled defenders of free speech.

Y'Know, I'm Not Sure Tax Cuts Will Require Cuts In Services After All...

Read it and scream....

Noted Ecomentalist Calls For More 4x4s

In case you were still taking Copenhagen seriously....

Nigerians On A Plane

Thinking further about yesterday's post, it's no wonder the left is emphasising the whole Nigerian thing. After all, the Ummah's Undie Bomber might not have damaged any planes, but he's sure blown a hole in the left's credibility.

There's the obvious point that - again - the passenger on an airliner who turns out to be a terrorist is the one who fits perfectly the profile for a terrorist (or would have done if airlines were allowed to profile passengers). That ought not to be a surprise, but it sure seems to keep passing the left by. If the evidence for Gerbil Worming was as strong as the evidence for profiling, conservatives would be biking to work, but instead the left insists that since profiling wouldn't necessarily pick up one of those Chinese Catholic suicide bombers we hear so much about, the whole thing's a bust.

Which is point two right there. The left's always justified its opposition to profiling on the grounds that they have supa-smart alternatives - all of which utterly failed in this case. No fly lists and no liquids allowed? No problem!

The precise details of how exactly the various governments screwed it up are still being revealed, but one thing's for sure: the only serious opposition the Boxer Bomber faced was from the random collection of civilians on the flight with him. Indeed, while the professionals were asleep at the wheel, the ordinary Joes - or Jakkes - attacked with such skill and effectiveness that I understand the hipsters want to have them all jailed.

Even more surprisingly for students of hipster rhetoric, these de facto citizen soldiers managed to achieve all they did without slaughtering any Sikh pharmacists or inadvertently imposing the Fourth Reich.

But that's not the best of it: in so far as this particular Man of No Affiliation had the background of a Nigerian David Cameron, that would tend to debunk just about every excuse hipsters have ever deployed for that completely random collection of individuals who keep getting caught up in terrorist incidents. Poverty? Disenfranchisement? Lack of educational opportunities? If this guy's a victim, who isn't?

Terror At 40,000 Feet, Insanity At Ground Level

Ross asks some good questions about the Boxer Shorts Bomber, but misses the key one: just what surreal excuse are the usual suspects going to come up with this time?

I don't think the whole 'isolated incident' thing is going to work this time. Come to think of it, it's not even an isolated incident of 'Apparel-Related Terrorism On A Trans-Atlantic Flight'.

Of course, the hipsters have already started up on 'Operation Snowjob' or, to put it another way, anyone know where this Man of No Affiliation came from originally? I think it came up on the TV once or twice, but I missed it in amongst all the shots of Lagos, people in traditional West African dress and Nwankwo Kanu scoring for Portsmouth.

Apparently, there were no casualties on the airliner, but the whole nation of Nigeria has been thrown under the bus. All of which proves the Victimhood Poker truly is the Rosetta Stone of politics. If this poor, misguided, young scallywag had spent his time in London indulging in recreational rapes and drug dealing, he'd have been a 'man from Central London' - a Man of No Appearance, in fact. But now the MSM are scrambling to throw sand in the public's eyes, and suddenly it's all Nigeria, all the time. Will no one think of the 'vast majority of peace-loving Nigerians'?

The True Meaning of Christmas

...is sweary elves.

It's not old, it's timelss!

'Science' != 'Whatever Scientists Do'

For once, the ecochondriacs have got a point: it's so easy when writing about Climategate to concentrate on individual outrages such as one tree forests and miss the wider context. We should never let indivudal frauds blind us to the basic insanity of the whole project.

There's a great round up here, but I'd just like to pick up on one point S2 makes since it really strikes at the heart of what's gone wrong with climate science.

Theories are like opinions, everyone has them, but to qualify as a bona fide scientific theory, it has to meet certain criteria and chief among them is the issue of falsifiability. To put it another way, a theory has to make predictions that can either be proven or disproved.

Consider Pasteur's debunking of the theory of spontaneous generation. He predicted that nutrient broths kept in flasks protected by filters would remain germ free. Had bacteria grown in these flasks, that would have destroyed his theory. In reality, the broths stayed bug free and so the germ theory was strengthened. That's how science is meant to be done. Climate science? Not so much.

For a group of people so anxious to claim status as secular priests of science, it's remarkable how much climate scientists play fast and loose with this basic principle of science. As far as I can tell, climate science predicts, well, everything, up to and including zombie attacks. Hot/cold, wet/dry, it's all good. It's not so much science as a giant game of Buckaroo where these guys load each and every result onto their model until the point where it collapses into a bucking train wreck.

No doubt these guys would claim that, hey, politics is a contact sport, you've got to go along to get along, blah, blah, blah.... True enough, but they're the ones who keep blathering about how they're the Guardians of True Science. They're Eric Cartman demanding we respect their authoritah... right up until they get caught talking nonsense, in which case it's just politics. Lab coat on, lab coat off. Whatever works best at that particular moment.

Why take their science any more seriously than they do themselves? To paraphrase Ghandi, as far as climate science goes, I would welcome it.

Save Our Smackheads!

Hey, say what you like, but at least we've found a case of Islamic violence that liberals don't support. He should have claimed it was a protest against Israel that got out of hand.

Still, this does throw some light onto the true nature of the Nu Tories. In so far as the main excuse for conservatives supporting the Ayatollah Khameron is that he's actually a hard-line conservative who just plays a liberal squish on TV, it's hard to reconcile that theory with the reality that the Cameron Party has not only embraced the left's agenda, which can sometimes be excused as political realism, it's also embraced the underlying world view, which never can be.

Consider Chris Grayling's recent attempt to reach out to the right: he wants to allow householders to kill burglars. Say what?

As Julie says, who's asking for that? Homicidal householders are a liberal caricature. There's no better barometer of the demented state of modern liberalism than that these people really think folks who smash their way through front doors at 3 AM are all loveable old lags called Lefty, but the nation's home-owners are sadistic killers just waiting for the chance to torture innocent smackheads to death.

What the right wants, and has wanted for years, is a meaningful, right to self-defence. One that isn't subject to being retroactively revoked years after the fact should liberal activists manage to contrive a plausible atrocity story around us actually defending ourselves or our families. Or, to put it another way, if 'reasonable force' is such a reasonable concept, why don't we apply it more widely?

'Top Judge' Wonders: Uhh... Maybe Our Lawless Scum Coddling Wasn't Such A Good Idea After All

Good News: a top judge has finally admitted that thugs are, literally, getting away with murder.

Bad News: his reasoning is a complete train wreck.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge declared that there should be long jail sentences for those who launch violent attacks – even if they do not mean to kill.

He said cases of ‘one-punch manslaughter’ were being treated too leniently. Greater weight should be given to the outcome of the attack than to the intention and ‘crimes which result in death should be treated more seriously

Say what? The offence is the offence. What the right is saying - and has said for years - isn't that there should be different penalties for the same crime depending on how it affects the victim, it's that when a violent headcase strikes a man in the head, death is an entirely predictable outcome of the crime, and so a murder rap is more than justified. Even Baroness 'Papers Please' Scotland gets closer to the truth:

‘If there is anyone who does not know that if you punch someone they may fall over, strike their head and then die, we should do everything possible to enlighten that person.

Or we could just kick them off the bench?

This is where rubber meets the road. The law, as passed by Parliament is quite clear that these cases are murder. It's the bewigged ones who have spent decades defining murder up to the point where anything short of flamethrowers hardly counts.

As ever, there's a wider issue here. Judges hate hate hate the mandatory life sentence for murder, but instead of doing the decent thing and resigning to campaign for a change in the law, or even just the moderately sleazy thing, and campaigning against it while still in office, what they've done instead is evade the clearly-expressed will of Parliament by tightening the definition of murder to the point of absurdity.

It's great that they're finally deciding to treat killing people as more serious than, say, tax evasion (but, say, why now instead of over the past twelve years), but it doesn't change the fact we only got here because a lawless judiciary was allowed to ignore the law of the land in favour of its own far-out lefty nonsense. Whatever happens in these particular cases, the fact remains we still have a judiciary that thinks Parliament's output comes stamped with the word 'For Information Only'.

Quote of the Day

Kathy Shaidle says what half the country has been wanting to say for years:

We're always scolded that we should be grateful to our "foremother" feminists who paved the way for us in the workplace, but all most of them did was turn offices into sucky boring swear-free non-stop birthday parties and gossip factories littered with cat pictures.

...but don't forget the constant lawsuits too. Hey, if the sexes were reversed, this would be worth at least five million.

And Finally...

If the right is so extreme, why do liberals have to lie about just who's really committing crimes?

And Another Thing...

Again, if it's the right that holds the patent on 'inflammatory rhetoric' and the like, how come it's always right-wing public figures that are the victims of violence?

Boys Will Be Boys!

Looks like the Moviegoer of No Appearance has been convicted of ABH, or as the BBC chooses to put it, 'Boy Found Guilty of Bleach Attack'

Ah yes: kids today: scrumping apples, playing truant and trying to blind people in bleach attacks. If it's the right that's so extreme, how come it's always liberals who carry water for savages?

About That Budget Deficit.....

This must be what they call investing in 'hospitals and schools'.

Moviegoer of No Appearance

Somehow, instinct tells me this guy probably wasn't from 'Leeds' so much as somewhere a few miles west of there... but wait: Mr Liberal would like to point that there's a ban on naming the defendant so the newspapers can't report any identifying characteristics. So there!

But her bearded 6ft 3in attacker was desperate for revenge, said Tim Capstick, prosecuting.

Oops. Guess it's only some identifying characteristics they're not reporting (although the beard strongly suggests another one of those Amish).

Worst Attempt At Racial Victimhood Evah!

Has to be seen to be believed.

On the plus side, at least that kind of wraps up the whole 'only whites can be racist' thing, right? Besides, as one of the commentors said, if Tiger only prowled round his own ethnic group, he'd die a virgin.

Liberal Tourettes Claims Another Victim

This time it's Guardian weenie Hugo Rifkind accidentally letting his inner loon out in public.

The opening section is merely retarded, dependent as it on trying to create an analogy between engineering and biomedical research on the one hand, and the gerbil warming crowd on the other. Or, put it another way, Rifkind wants to compare two of the most tightly-regulated areas in science and technology to a bucnh of loonies busily playing musical datasets.

Hey, try getting a drug on the market while claiming that you've lost the original data from the clinical trials. As for building bridges, well, the folks in Workington might have had their town cut in half, but at least they don't have to put with people insisting that the bridges are still there, and anyone who says they aren't is in the pocket of Big Construction. Still, since Rifkind raises the point, how about a National Institute for Climate Excellence, huh? We can even use the same acronym.

Still, wacky though it is to see a liberal go all misty eyed about pharmaceutical companies, the real money quote is later on:

Where has it come from, this sudden consensus among Britain’s right-wing punditry that there’s some kind of scam going on here? Yes, Delingpole, I mean you, and plenty of others, too. What gives you the right?

And that is why people talk about liberal fascism.

The liberal concept of freedom means everyone has the right to their opinion.

There's a fundamental humbuggery here too. Rifkind claims to be ever so 'umble, because he's ready to defer to whatever the scientists say. But hang on a mo, we know exactly what they're going to say: we're all going to die and the only solution is Big Government, Bigger Taxes and Speech Licences. These people are exactly the same type of Guardian-reading tools as Rifkind himself. Liberals like Rifkind might defer to the geeks, but only providing they're liberal geeks. How about those guys in the biotech industry who claim restrictions on genetic modification are strangling progress? Do they qualify for the Magic 'No Public Debate Required' Pass?

(And as for that whole 'Bell Curve' thing....)

For that matter, how about those of us who were scientists, but escaped to the Free World? Are we qualified to have an opinion? We might not be current, but we could point out that 'Climate Science' is an oxymoron.

The whole point of a scientific theory is that its falsifiable - it makes predictions that can be shown to either be true or false. Climate science? Not so much. A cold winter proves the climate's changing, so does a mild one. Ditto, hot summers, rainy summers, cold summers.... it's all good. Besides, if needs be, they'll just compare summer temperatures in 2007 to winter temperatures in 1968 to hide the decline or something. It's not corrupt, it's just science, advanced fraudology. Besides, you need to look at the context, or as Ann Coulter says:

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage" do not mean "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage." These words actually mean "onion soup," "sexual submissive" and "Gary, Ind."

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed "in context" -- the words' check was in the mail, and they'd like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

America The Beautiful

Now this is the way to handle liberals! You can almost imagine the dialogue:

Liberal Whiner: Having to wait for the executioners to find three veins is cruel!

Real American: OK, you win! We'll just kill him more slowly with the one drug then.

Liberal Whiner: Doh!

Today's Slice Of Open Borders Theatre

Finally! The Government's clamping down on those pesky Chilean immigrants selling their daughters into forced marriages. Or sons. Or whatever.

True, there are plenty of reasons to be sceptical about this marriage, all things considered:

The ‘heartbroken’ 18-year-old chose to live with 19-year-old Diego Andres Aguilar Quila, who had to leave the country recently after his student visa expired.

OK, so maybe he's married a British woman for the visa. On the other hand, he's married to a British woman, so you can't say he hasn't earned it the hard way.

Still and all, in so far as this is in no sense of the word a 'forced marriage', this surely meets the main criteria for 'open borders theatre', namely the blind enforcement of arbitrary rules against sympathetic targets, thereby press-ganging them as sock puppets in the left's endless agitprop production 'Evils of Nasty Racists What Refuse To Embrace Glorious Open Borders System'.

Who Knew The Men Of No Appearance Was A Franchise Operation?

Looks like they've opened a branch in New Zealand.

(H/T to Lurker)

Race Hustling Pseudo-Con In Fraud Shocka!

Who'd have thunk it? Race hustling whiner and professional Tory turncoat St John of Taylor is facing fraud allegations. Financial fraud that is, not just the whole 'pretending to be conservative' thing.

As Laban says, the BBC will be heart-broken. Then again, what about that? Since at least 1992, when St John's elephantine sense of entitlement and sneery contempt for the bumpkins managed to single-handedly lose a safe Tory seat, the BBC has been promoting him as some kind of human litmus test. Any suggestion the Tories should move right, and particularly on culture war issues, and sure as night follows day, there would be St John to perform his party trick of reading Guardian editorials while prefacing every paragraph with the phrase 'as a conservative myself....'.

Now he's busted. Hey, in so far as the left seems to be pretty keen on Britain apologising for, well, just about anything, isn't it time for the BBC to apologise to the British right? We've had nearly two decades of our state broadcaster providing a platform for a fraudster to defame a huge chunk of the country.

If nothing else, what about the voters who had the good sense not to fall for the hype in 1992? The BBC has spent seventeen years implying that their criticism of Taylor was just a pathetic attempt to hide their raycist motivations. Now it turns out that the bumpkins had him bang to rights. It was the sofisticaytes at the BBC who were too plain prejudiced too see that the yokels had a point after all. If apologies are your bag, this would certainly seem an apologising matter, right?

We're Safe Forever

Finally, someone's taking seriously the risk of hijackings by pop tarts.

In related news, liberalism will kill us all.

This Is What I Would Have Written (If I Could Write)

Kathy Shaidle sums it up perfectly.

'Top Gear' Even Cooler Than We Suspected

It's all about having the right enemies. Good quote too from Benny Boy. Very..... moderate.

We Hate Them Because They're Scum

Ranting Stan has a good post on the bizarre 'Baby P' report (short summary: social workers suck, so give them huge pay rises). Hey, it's not exactly the same as the Macpherson Report.

Stan hits the nail on the head. It's not about who reports to who, or how many department heads there are, it's about a warped culture. It's bad enough that these people are obsessed with pandering to designated victims, no matter how dysfunctional their behaviour - see Victoria Climbié for further details - but they've also absorbed the deranged feminist idea that the traditional families is, by definition, evil.

That's why they let certain of their 'clients' get away with cultural quirks, like starving their children to death, but will bend over backwards to victimise any family without the magic victim card.

That's point one right there. There a clear pattern of prejudice and attempted social engineering here. These people are extremist kooks pushing their own agenda. They don't have bad judgement, their judgement works fine, they're just basing it on different criteria from what people who aren't socialist thugs do.

Which is point two. Consider this from the case above:

She was taken into a room with a nurse and social worker who apparently told her: 'We would like Zak to go into foster care to assess how he feeds. You have legal rights but be warned if you oppose this we will go straight to court and have all your parental rights taken away.'

Now, isn't that nice? Again, this is not about judgement: a citizen was pressured to give up her legal rights by the threat of further victimisation. You could have Perry Mason stop by and he couldn't argue that as anything other than an outrageous example of lawless thuggery. And that goes with swords, oak leaves and gold cluster for a system that permits them to do this.

To the point: social workers are extremist lunatics who abuse public office to lawlessly victimise innocent families while abandoning politically-inconvenient children to a hideous fate, and now they're complaining of low social status? They're lucky to be allowed to walk the streets.

The Dave: Focusing On The Real Issues

I can't help thinking it's a bit of a missed opportunity here. With a few sessions on the sunbed she could change her name to 'Nirmala Patel' and tick two boxes.

Really, it's the perfect microcosm of Davism. Problem: Captain Diversity has an entourage full of the biggest collection of silver-spoon wastrels since the Czar's court. Answer: get them to change their names.

Ah yes, that should work. Except for the whole still being rich wastrels thing. No doubt he'll be commuting in from Switzerland when it's time to vote for those ecotaxes.

The Mainstream Runs Through Islington?

In so far as even the Moonbat himself has thrown the UEA fraudsters under the Prius, this would tend to undercut the BBC's claim to be objective. The BBC can't claim to be balanced because it's 'being attacked by both sides'. There's no both sides, there's fringe lunatics and there's everyone else, including plenty of ecoloons. Hey, when you're too much of a moonbat even for the moonbat, you are indeed a moonbat. Besides, I thought these guys were all about supporting the consensus?

But no: they're still ranting about the 'sceptic business lobby'. Which is kind of ironic when you think about it. Just as there is no form of weather known to man that is not proof of gerbil worming, it now turns out that ecochondriacs e-mailing each other about using 'tricks' to 'hide the decline' and plotting to force critics out of their jobs is proof that their opponents are involved in a conspiracy. In both cases, the ecoloon position is essentially unfalsifiable.

The BBC's position is revealing in another way too. The claim that it was the business lobby wot done it only holds up if you believe that there is no good faith reason for anyone to oppose the right of unaccountable supra-national organisations to pass restrictive laws and levy taxes on the world's population. Really? Is there no one in the whole of the 'uniquely funded' BBC who can see why some people might object?

Equally significantly, consider what the nasty old 'business lobby' is charged with: attempting to influence public opinion by campaigning against repressive legislation... you know, kind of like we were in a democracy or something. So not only does our state broadcaster support authoritarian lunacy, it even believes it's somehow illegitimate for anyone to oppose it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, or at least the UEA approximation of it, it turns out that the dog ate their data. No doubt the BBC will be along soon to put it all in context.

The Clue Is In The Question

Three observations on this:

1. Who knew LfaT had it in him? And what would The Dave think? My guess: it's either steroids or the red pill.
   
2. 'Loaded' is not a men's magazine, it's the Beano with more swearing.
   
3. In so far as it's supposedly self-evident that men wanting to set up a club should have to seek permission from the female of the species, I think we can tell who wants to oppress who.

They Probably Think Elvis Is Dead Too!

Conspiracy theorists, hey? What will they think of next?

Police are arresting innocent people in order to get their hands on as many DNA samples as possible, senior Government advisers revealed last night.

Who'd have thunk it? Apart from 'everyone', anyway.

They have a genuinely good idea, too:

They also called for all police - including support staff - to place their own DNA on the national database in a show of solidarity with a public being routinely placed under suspicion.

Hey, why not? Suck it up Plod, I make that a lawful order under Section 7 of the Sauce For The Goose Act (2009)

Actually, no, that won't work. In so far as police officers have been shown to have deprived citizens of their liberty on bogus grounds so as to obtain their DNA unlawfully, merely requesting DNA from serving officers won't work. No, siree, Jack: at the least, they should be seized at random on their days off and held in cells for 72 hours before their DNA is taken, just to level things up.

War Crimes Then & Now

A Canadian pol makes the obvious point:

The Canadian government is dismissing calls for a public inquiry into the alleged torture of prisoners handed over by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.....

MacKay painted Colvin as having been duped by the Taliban and said Canadians are being asked to accept the word of prisoners "who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls.

Then again, it's not like the left don't have form for this, even to the point of being too much even for some fellow liberals.

All things considered, this probably explains why the left has now decided to give up on the whole 'reality' thing and concentrate its fire on imaginary war crimes (but on the plus side, at last the Umbrella Corporation will be brought to justice).

I Have A Few Labels For Them

Here's one for the modern philosophers: how often do you have to screw up not to be the Smartest People In The Room any more?

Leadership!

Stephen Glover writes well in support of the Tory rebels in Norfolk, but he misses the essential contradiction in the Nu Tory position.

The hipster trash claim that the whole 'ideology' thing is dragsville. The job of the modern MP is, supposedly, to manage the business of government rather than advance any particular agenda, so who cares if they're sleazy, providing they can really get to grips with the NHS, right?

The problem with that is there are approximately no companies in Britain where someone can sleep with a senior manager, land a plum job and then claim it's everyone else who has the problem. In any serious industry, Liz Truss would have been shown the door the moment this was uncovered.

But still, that's not it. There's something else going on here. For all that Cameron's drones keep whining about 'inverted snobbery', 90% of the time when his fancy education is cited, it's by one of his cultists claiming that he was born to lead. Really? 'Cause I'm thinking if a trifling matter like a rebel constituency in Norfolk brings out the Sweary Mary in him, he may not be exactly ready for prime time. Those pesky country folk refuse to support his candidate and suddenly he's auditioning for the lead in the English-language version of Downfall - that's the guy we need representing us on the world stage!

Diversity Is Our...... No, Wait! That Was Last Week

This is a great post, but one point that's really worth hammering home is this: didn't diversity used to be a good thing?

Liberals demand that every culture, fragment of a culture, or just plain train wreck blob of social pathology is to be celebrated as a vital part of the cultural ecosystem. Meanwhile, when it comes to actual cultures, like, say, Italian culture... Nope: violent insanity is hailed as proof of aufenticity! in the inner cities, but this whole 'Italy' thing is clearly just a fraud by people who want to hold back the proper development of Euroregion 16 (although it may also be true that the EU feels threatened by the example of a nation that managed to run a real European government without needing twenty squillon bureaucrats).

Equally, the very things liberals claim are ludicrous when used in a British context turn out to make perfect sense when the EU does it. The same people who squeal like stuck pigs when asked to teach British history are pefectly OK even with the most Frankensteinian attempts to create a European identity. Except, y'know, it really is true that Britain spent decades and billions of pounds defeating the global slave trade, but no one in the Normandy beachhead ever thought of themselves as fighting in a European Civil War (not least the C********* and Them Who Shall Not Be Credited Ever).

For that matter, in so far as there is any kind of common European culture, the EU is the antithesis of it. After all, we have approximately 2,500 years of evidence as to what works and what doesn't, and the EU is definitely in column 'B'. In so far as the EU can claim any kind of descent from European traditions, they're ones actual Europeans were glad to drop at the first opportunity.

Femilunacy Round-Up

While the manginas in blue want the right to arrest men who haven't actually done anything illegal 'cause hey, a lot of legal equals one illegal, surely, it turns out that a girls gotta do what a girls gotta do.

Hmmmm.... it's a mystery why marriage is dying in Britain.

Liz Truss: Social Conservative Icon

In a decision that stunned absolutely no one, Norfolk Tories folded like a row of tents and accepted arrogant Metropolitan sleaze Liz Truss being parachuted into a safe seat.

Hey, in so far as her moron supporters have spent weeks referring to the people she claims she wants to represent as the 'Turnip Taliban', it's fair to ask just what it would take for the Tory base to reacquaint itself with its collective balls. What's a girl need to do? Slag off the Queen?

No,wait, she's done that already. It turns out that Truss really is a new kind of conservative, specifically a Lib Dem kind of conservative.

All of which kind of makes an important point. The hip'n'happening Davesters claim that, sure, she thinks the whole marriage vows thing is kind of a drag, and, yessss, technically she has been proven to have concealed important information when specifically asked to disclose it, and she got a plum slot after banging a senior member of the Party, but only total squares would argue that makes her untrustworthy, right?

Except now we know lifelong conservative Truss, isn't. She's a Lib Dem who's jumped ship for a bigger, better deal with Call Me Dave's Nu Tories.

Who'd have thunk it?

Well, not the Nu Tories anyway. Their whole doctrine is that the 'personal morality' thing is dragsville, and no amount of personal sleaze will affect someone's ability to 'do the job', except it turns out that an adulteress who betrays her husband and lies to the people she wants to represent is untrustworthy in her political views as well.

Yes, indeed. It turns out that sleazy is as sleazy does, y'know, just those evil old socio-cons always said it was.

Steyn D'Jour

The Great Steyn returns to an important point:

"Diversity" is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in "multiculturalism" doesn't require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them. Heading out from my hotel room the other day, I caught a glimpse of that 7-Eleven video showing Major Hasan wearing "Muslim" garb to buy a coffee on the morning of his murderous rampage. And it wasn't until I was in the taxi cab that something odd struck me: He is an American of Arab descent. But he was wearing Pakistani dress – that's to say, a "Punjabi suit," as they call it in Britain, or the "shalwar kameez," to give it its South Asian name. For all the hundreds of talking heads droning on about "diversity" across the TV networks, it was only Tarek Fatah, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, who pointed out that no Arab males wear this get-up – with one exception: Those Arab men who got the jihad fever and went to Afghanistan to sign on with the Taliban and al-Qaida. In other words, Maj. Hasan's outfit symbolized the embrace of an explicit political identity entirely unconnected with his ethnic heritage.

Actually, I'd go further: multiculturalism actively requires ignorance of other cultures. In so far as liberals blindly assume that Islamofascists are basically Guardian readers with a penchant for florid rhetoric, it's the left that is truly ethnocentric.

Liberals are incapable of seeing the rest of the world as anything other than the West's culture wars writ large. Consider Senator Patty Murray's claim that Bin Laden helped to build day care centres in Afghanistan, presumably to help out all those working mothers juggling work and career under the Taliban. To the point: Senator Murray's claim is so self-evidently ludicrous that it speaks to a profound ignorance about the nature of Islam.

All of which is by way of saying that, as ever, the supposedly enlightened liberal position only stands up providing you don't know anything the subject concerned. Hence why liberals are obsessed with the idea of suppressing 'hate speech' and the like: liberal ideas don't stand up well when people are allowed to discuss them.

The Double-Spaced Media

While liberals try and convince us all that screaming 'Allah Ackbar' while gunning down Infidels is hardly proof of religious motivations (Winner of 'Best in Show' here), the Daily Mail takes time out to remind us of the MSM's previous personal best: the Case of the Angry, White, Male Sniper.

Barring some last-minute stay of execution, at 9.30pm, John Allen Muhammad will be killed by lethal injection at a prison in Virginia, closing the book on one of the most nightmarish and perplexing episodes in American criminal history...

Yet one question remains unanswered: why did Muhammad do it?

Yes, it certainly is a mystery all right. After all, consider who the sniper was:

A Muslim convert who last year discarded the name "Williams" and adopted a new identity as "Muhammad". A Muslim convert called Muhammad who publicly expressed his approval of al-Qaeda's September 11 attacks. A pro-al-Qaeda Muslim convert called Muhammad who marked the first anniversary of 9/11, to the exact minute, by visiting the Department of Motor Vehicles in Camden, New Jersey. Two minutes after he left the building, the cops arrived to deal with a mysterious bomb scare.

Then there's this:

Exhibit 65-006: A self-portrait of Malvo in the cross hairs of a gun scope shouting, "ALLAH AKBAR!" The word "SALAAM" scrawled vertically. A poem: "Many more will have to suffer. Many more will have to die. Don't ask me why."
Exhibit 65-013: The word "INSHALLAH" above a portrait glorifying "Muammar Kaddafi" as "The Liberator" dressed in full military regalia.
Exhibit 65-016: A portrait of Saddam Hussein with the words "INSHALLAH" and "The Protector," surrounded by rockets labeled "chem" and "nuk" (sic).
Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. "We will kill them all. Jihad."
Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait, with his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane flying toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet." A poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks (sic), Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of David drawn in cross hairs.
Exhibit 65-067: A suicide bomber labeled "Hamas" walking into a McDonald's restaurant. Another drawing of the Twin Towers burning captioned: "85 percent chance Zionists did this." More scrawls: "ALLAH AKBAR," "JIHAD" and "Islam will explode."
Exhibit 65-103: A lion accompanies chapter and verse from the Koran ("Sura 2:190"): "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you and slay them wherever ye catch them."
Exhibit 65-109: Portrait of Osama bin Laden, captioned "Servant of Allah."
Exhibit 65-117: The White House drawn in cross hairs, surrounded by missiles, with a warning: "Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you" and "you will bleed to death little by little."
Exhibit 65-133: Reference to "Islamic counter attack force . . . ICAF."
Exhibit 65-114: Self-portrait of Malvo as sniper. Rant says "they all died and they all deserved it."
Exhibit 65-101: Malvo's thought for the day: "Islam the only true guidance, the way of peace."

They ought to print these papers with double-spacing so we've got room to fill in all the stuff they leave out.

Celebrate Subsidence!

All things considered, you have to admire the MSM's ability to mark twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell without once explaining exactly how that particular event came to pass at that particular time. Maybe it was just built with shoddy materials?

Back in 1980 the same people - sometimes literally the same people - were busily explaining that the West would just have to learn to live with the Soviet Union - and 'respectable conservatives' were explaining that all we could do was to try and slow down any further expansion of Soviet influence. But then a funny thing happened on the way to a red planet.

In the teeth of all received wisdom, Ronald Reagan realised that the USSR was a bankrupt thug state, reliant entirely on its ability to repress its peoples at home and to export mayhem to everywhere else. Reagan didn't believe in détente, he believed in victory. Under Reagan, a newly-reinvigorated America bottled up the Soviet's conventional forces, while the CIA and friends not only halted Soviet expanision in the Third World, they bled the Soviets dry just keeping hold of what they had.

Look at Central America. Instead of Marxists sweeping to power in El Salvador, the Soviets were forced to pour in resources just to prop up their basket case Mini-Me government in Nicaragua.

To the point, Reagan almost single-handedly took on the idea that the decline and fall of the West was inevitable. On the contrary, he recognised that, properly harnessed, the strengths of the free world could make victory inevitable, and the utter depravity of Marxism made it a moral imperative.

Hey, the Red Army swept in Eastern Europe in 1945 (and again into Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 respectively). If all it needed to defeat these savages was 'peaceful protest', how come those lazy Krauts took so long getting round to it?

Return of the Mob of No Appearance

Gosh, what can this all mean?

Let's take a moment to reflect on the fact that in modern Britain a riot in which a police officer is stabbed gets about the same mainstream coverage as League One football results. Clearly, they're stabbing the cops the British just won't stab.

(H/T to Lurker in the comments, with more from Julie)

Appeasement: Working As Well As Ever

Heh. I thought the argument was that Cameron might have humiliated himself, but at least he's managed to maintain good relations with the Eurotrash......

Special HoD Summary of The Tory Position on Europe:

The Lisbon Treaty was a constitutional and legal outrage until the Czech's signed it, but now it's just one of those things and we should all move on.

I guess this time the battle was lost on the playing fields of Eton.

Just Wait Until Anthony Hopkins Gets Busted For Eating All Those People

In case you ever thought the Nu Police live in a fantasy world....

UN Scrapes Barrel

The thing I can't work out is this: if the US is so evil, how come the charge sheet is always so completely bonkers?

He's Not Galileo, He's The Pope

Yep. I feel the same way about the Prof Nutt pity party.

All things considered, Nutt would appear to lack at least two of the main qualifications for martyrdom. Take his supposed claim to victimhood: he was a quangocrat, now he's not. Ah well. Burning at the stake this isn't.

Hey, it's hard to say anything nice about our politicians, but at least we can throw them out every now and again. Fringe kooks like Nutt worm their way into the body politic without the barest public scrutiny, and push their own agendas without any democratic mandate whatsoever. Rooting out rogues who hijack public office to advance extreme ideologies is exactly what our elected representatives should be doing.

This is Humbug No 1 right there: Nutt is exactly the kind of quangocrat member of our permanent ruling class who libertarians routinely denounce, but now it turns out he's a fellow drug bore, he's Leonidas at Thermopylae. Huh?

Then there's the other thing: what principle if he defending anyway? The supremacy of science? But science-based arguments have to be balanced against the wider social issues. Again, this is exactly why we have a Parliament in the first place.

More to the point, what science is this exactly? When he says that horseriding is more dangerous than Ectasy, does that mean in the sense that more people are called each year falling down stairs than going over Niagra Falls in a barrel? Or maybe he means people who die while in the act of taking drugs vs riding? Or does he mean in some other sense? To the point: how dangerous drugs are is a live issue in science, but now here's Professor Nutt announcing Ex Cathedra The Correct Scientific View on Drugs.

Well, no: nothing is more antithetical to science than some pompous prat arbitrarily deciding that his views are certified scientific and everybody who disagrees is an ignorant savage.

For that matter where's the evidence that Nutt's preferred model of credentialed ubermen producing centrally planned truth is any better than the market place of ideas? True, the free market gave us reality TV, but at least The X Factor never caused mass starvation.

No, Nutt is not about the science, but he's a great example of a modern scientist: whiny, entitled and actually quite nasty when it all comes down to it.

'Respectable Conservatives': Still Wrong

Direct Hit.

But there's more to it than that. Who ever trusted the left's good faith anyway?

Well, most of the conservative face cards actually. The conservative base were always sceptical that importing Somali milita men and giving them free houses was the road to prosperity. It was the supposedly brilliant Nu Tory elite that got sold a dummy.

Not only that, but the allegedly unenlightened attitudes of the base were cited as proof positive that they were a bunch of Neanderthals who should sit down, shut up and accept the leadership of the Smartest People In The Room.

In so far as the Call Me Dave and pals whole claim to genius is based on their ability to get played for fools by the left, just what definition of 'smart' are we using here?

Libs: We Do Support The Troops, Too!

I guess BNP week really is over. Back then, libs were claiming to be enraged - enraged! - at the BNP hijacking the good name of our troops. But now...

Like I keep saying, the left will get into bed with anyone but they won't respect you in the morning.

Reminder: Sayeeda Warsi Is No Kind Of Moderate

In so far as the key clash in tonight's Question Time is supposedly between nasty Nick Griffin and loveable moderate Sayeeds Warsi, it;s worth revisiting just how moderatly moderate Warsi really is:

Answer: not very.

Actually, NRO let's Warsi off the hook here, swallowing the line that India's Jihadist loons are just 'Kashmiri Rebels'. Really?

Hey, you could almost cobble together some kind of wacadodle economic justification for 'Khasmiri rebels' attacking hotels in Bombay, except that wouldn't explain why the terrorists concentrated on British and American tourists. And then there's this.

Say, I'm not seeing a lot of Jewish influence in Khasmir. Maybe it was something else that motivated these guys?

Hey, who'd have thunk it? It turns out that the 'moderate' is the only person on the BBC's panel tonight who supports the murder of both her fellow citizens and any random Jew that's passing, ethnic cleansing of Indians from Khasmir, and Islamic mayhem in general. What's Nick Griffin is only supposed to secretly believe, Warsi comes out and says openly.

'Radicalised'

Yep, it's those wacky 'Asians' again!

Radicalised to what, Mr MSM? Clearly, hard-line Buddhists, hey?

Also exposed: yes, the education system does victimise white youths while turning a blind eye to ethnic violence, just like those right-wing loons always said it did.

Feminist Threat Assesment Good As Ever

Well, no wonder PC Plod can't afford to deal with trivia like this - not when
they need the money to slime a guy on the off chance.

No Bias Here!

Is the BBC biased? Consider tonight's edition of 'The One Show'. The running order was as follows: first up, the evilest Daily Mail article evah!, with commentary from guest Holly Johnson.

Yep, that Holly Johnson, the screamingly camp washed-up 80s popster. Hey, you know you've drank too much kool aid when the guy you've got on to rebut charges that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy is HIV+.

Then we had banker's bonuses, and a sub-Michael Moore interlude of Adam Shaw hassling people with actual jobs to try and indict them on camera, but no one to point out that only the best, and most-profit generating bankers will ever earn anything like what Jonathan Ross gets for telling nob gags.

The next item was one of those that makes you think 'are they just really patronising, or are they really this thick'? It was an item on archaeological evidence showing that Roman Britain had some people from Africa in it. Who ever doubted it? Nevertheless, this was used as a hook to ram home the important learning point that, gosh darn it, multiculturalism is the normal state of nature - which only works if you can't tell the difference between multi-culturalism and multi-racialism. The Romans don't strike me as the kind of people who spent a lot of time worrying that they were too ethnocentric. Then there's that whole 'thrown to the lions' thing...

Next up: evil insurers refusing to pay the claims of people just because they didn't lock their front doors properly. As opposed to a health service that refuses to treat people because they're too old/fat/smokers/drinkers...... Which is just common sense, obviously.

Finally, we had a report about a canine rehab facility - see, that's the kind of hard-hitting reporting you need the licence fee for. Possibly sensing a certain difficulty in shoe-horning in a left-wing message, the news bimbo presenter spent the whole report with a CND T-shirt on. Huh?

So that was that: five reports of which four were outright leftist in approach, and with nary a dissenting voice allowed. What a national treasure that organisation is!

I'm Just Glad Sir Freddie Isn't Here To See This...

Time for the band to start up on the gay pride anthem, and its stirring opening lines:

I gotta be me
I gotta be free
You'll get busted
If you disagree

Yes, indeed. The usual suspects are shocked - shocked! - that anyone could exploit someone's death to make a wider point. Well, you know, except for....

As befits cutting edge rebels sticking it to The Man, they've decided to whine like singed cats and set the PCC on the author concerned.

It's enough to make you nostalgic for the stoic machismo of Freddy Mercury.

Still, if bringing lifestyle into it is so controversial, how come these folks never complained about the eighty bazillion adverts which not so subtly suggested any guy over 30 who liked the odd hamburger was just asking for a heart attack (and never mind those right-wing loons who suggested genes were the biggest component in heart disease). And as for those fags cigarettes...

Hey, there's no 'hate the sin, love the sinner' where the health nazis are concerned. They aren't shy about depicting smokers, drinkers and the like as bad parents, slobs and the general untermensch. It's only when the gay lifestyle comes into the crosshairs that the finger-waggers get struck dumb.

If Stephen Gately was a young, up and coming accountant whose usual evening meal was a McD's takeout chowed down while working late in the office, he too would have been asking for it, but wondering, for example, whether it's such a good idea to regularly use enough speed to have sleeping beauty running marathons? Outrageous!

But that's the point: it's precisely because the supposed offence is so puny that the usual suspects are so determined to make it this century's holocaust. The whole objective of these howler monkey flash mobs is to make dissent from PC orthodoxy too hot to handle. Apparently, the gay agenda is such a well-worked out set of policy prescriptions, no one's allowed to talk about it.

Hey, maybe the lass in question could claim she was just offering a 'critical perspective on gay culture'? But no, the rules of the game are simple: guys dressing as priests and inserting crucifixes in each other's backsides is daring political commentary, but asking just what 'innovate, don't assimilate' actually means is The Hayte, and they'll scream and scream until they make themselves sick.

Spock Has A Lot To Answer For

Forget what you see on TV, this guy is the perfect example of the modern British scientist: a whiny, entitled, geriatric brat with a Napoleon complex you could build an airfield on.

NNW administers a righteous kicking and leaves his argument looking like a right old worker's paradise. Still, that set me to thinking: wacademics keep assuring us they're the smartest people in the room, but every time they try and string an actual argument together, it ends up looking like a new graduate's job prospects.

Consider Prof Bonaparte's little rant: the pharmaceutical industry is near-collapse but it's sitting on huge piles of cash, university research teams are too small but money should be channelled into small biotech start-ups, pharmaceutical companies making money is bad but his company making money is good....

Whole dessert trolley's full of cake are had and eaten. To the point: it is blindingly obvious reading this article that this guy hasn't had anyone contradict him since the Major years. Never mind all that 'the dog ate my resources' jibber-jabber, that's the real problem right there. The university system is knee-deep in pampered, posturing weenies spending their days blabbering about what enormous lasagnes they are, free from being hit in the face by the wet fish of economic reality.

The 'Bankers' Are Innocent

I've seen this all over the place, but you really can't remind people of this too often - guess the the odd man out here:

Lord Stevenson (ex-Halifax Bank of Scotland)
Andy Hornby (ex-HBOS)
Sir Fred Goodwin (ex-Royal Bank of Scotland)
Sir Terry Wogan, Radio 2 DJ
Sir Tom McKillop (ex-RBS)
Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer

The answer is - of course - Terry Wogan: he's the only one with any qualifications in banking. Blame the bankers? Bankers would have been an improvement on this lot.

Question D'Jour

If the hard, hard, hard-line Atheists (as opposed to mere 'atheists') are the smartest people in the room, how come they can't work out just why Tesco adverts use a chirpy slogan like 'every little helps' rather than simply screaming 'why do you retarded morons insist on shopping at obviously inferior supermarkets'?

UPDATE:

The big issue, I think, is that Tesco are trying to get people to buy into their product, hence a friendly, upbeat message, while too many Atheists seem to be mainly concerned with proving how everyone who isn't them is stoopid.

Completely Random Post

For some reason I feel compelled to point out that, yes, it is possible to be an overtly gay leftist and still be intellectually honest and funny as hell - all of which means the guys at Hillbuzz have the last word on the Obamamessiah's Nobble Prize.

Guardian of True Conservatism: People Who Accurately Quote Me Are Just Like Hitler!

Don't be shocked but a Cameroonatic has been caught trying to subvert one of Call Me Dave's bright, shiny new open primaries. Naturally enough, Iain Dale - for it is he - has responded by declaring that his critics are NAAAAAZIS.

Hmmmm... let's review the tape: Dale told Journal XXX this:

'I hope any Journal XXX readers who live in Bracknell will come to the open primary on October 17 to select their new candidate.

In so far as Journal XXX is actually the 'Pink News', I'm thinking the gay angle is not something the Mail had to shoehorn in. More to the point, here's the rest of the quote:

'I hope any Pink News readers who live in Bracknell will come to the open primary on October 17 to select their new candidate.

You don't even have to be a Conservative to attend.'

A-huh! So, since he's pretending to be a conservative and the 'gay' issue is totally something the Mail dragged up out of nowhere, what other reason would explain why non-conservatives would want to vote for him? His fabulous Sinatra impression and experience in kangaroo farming?

Hey, is this the perfect microcosm of Cameroonacy or what? The Dear Leader makes a big thing about setting up open primaries so, gosh darn it, ordinary folk can get involved in selecting candidates, but only as long as you define 'ordinary folk' as block-voting, single-issue fanatics - and if you don't, you, sir, are worse than Hitler!

Of course, it's not a real Dale post without drumming up trade for local sickbag manufacturers:

If by standing up to the Daily Mail, and drawing attention to this issue, it hijacks me in Bracknell, then that will be a bitter blow to have to take, but if I sat back and just accepted this sort of thing, what sort of person would that make me?

Yes, because being a whiny, professional victim is such a brave stand to take in Call Me Dave's new pity party. And how, you may ask, is he standing up? By whining to the Press Complaints Commission, a body originally set up to defend ordinary members of the public against factually-inaccurate reporting and urging his moron supporters to harass the journalist concerned. Classy!

And that's not the best of it. Guess the title of the next post after this call for harassment of reporters with the wrong views? 'Will This Be A Sad Day for Democracy'. Truly, you can't make it up.

It gets better. He claims the Mail's article is hateful because they referred to him as 'overtly' gay rather than 'openly' gay. Must be one of these 'code words'. Hey, I'm with the Great Steyn on this:

“Code word” is a code word for “I’m inventing what you really meant to say because the actual quote doesn’t quite do the job for me.”

Still, that's not the best of it. Captain Hatefinder follows it up with this:

Just imagine if I was Jewish and the same words had been used.

Overtly jewish Tory blogger Iain Dale... Isn't it charming how Jews rally like-minded chaps to their cause?

Yes, he really said that. Hey, if using the word 'overtly' instead of 'openly' is proof of bigotry, then that must mean that trying to draw moral equivalence between receiving (entirely valid) criticism of your attempts to pack meetings and the centuries of persecution suffered by the Jews surely counts as Holocaust denial, right?

Except... unlike the previously unknown overtly/openly distinction, the trivialisation of the Holocaust really is a common theme amongst ant-Semites.

Hey, at least he's being criticised for something he actually said. That's not a courtesy he extends to his opponents.

This kind of ranting about repressive social conservatives plotting to pollute the purity of his essence has bamboozled some of the more libertarian conservatives into supporting him, but if Dale has issues with social conservatives, it's fair to say its not the authoritarianism that's the problem: the guy who maintains a 24/7 watch for socio-cons plotting to hash his mellow has nothing to say about this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or even this.

Dale has a truly Brownesque ability to disappear when the heat is on. Consider that the police harassment of the Roberts family was too outrageous even for the courts, but the 'overtly conservative' Iain Dale had no issues with it. Ditto, if the whole 'should social services turn a blind eye to child molestation' thing strikes you as a tricky moral dilemma, you may not be a conservative.

Which is, of course, the issue. Conservatism is pretty 'big tent' but really: spies in the classroom, unlawful police harassment of critics with the wrong views, public servants forced to take part in rallies. Just what form of 'conservatism' are we talking about here?

It's not just the lousy individual policies, it's the underpinning world view. The dividing line in British politics right now is between those who think Britain has problems, and those who think Britain is the problem. For all the cutesy, politics-as-showbiz drivel Dale comes out with, the underlying theme of his writing is that Britain is a dark dystopia full to the brim with murderous savages. The idea that by any meaningful global or historical standards Britain is a fine nation, with a way of life worth fighting for... Nada.

It's a miserable, misanthropic world view that sees nothing redeeming in the whole country, except for the small chance that we might all come to our senses and elect Dale and pals to raze our country to the ground and remake it as a PC wonderland. This is a man comfortable with overweening state power and Frankensteinian social engineering. Take away some quibbling about tax rates and just what flavour of utopia they should build and there's nothing Dale believes that Polly Toynbee wouldn't agree with. It a worldview that is the antithesis of conservatism.

No wonder he's fallen back on recruiting block-voting drones from the Blue Oyster Bar. No conservatives should vote for him - otherwise the terrorists will have won!

US Rocket Hits Moon....

...BBC reports 52 Afghan wedding guests killed.

I'm So Old....

I remember when politicians waited until after the election to go back on campaign promises.

Why Do They Get So Angry When I Say That?

Hey, you know those 'indefinite sentences' which are in no way a slippery attempt to disguise soft judicial sentencing? The AG just appealed and got one raised to ten years (I guess they must mean 'life' in dog years)?

Still, it does give us a base line to work from: 'indefinite' < 10 years.

Also debunked: the myth about paedophiles reoffending:

The offender committed this offence in a place which he had used previously for a virtually identical crime," he said.

"His previous record demonstrated not merely a total failure to respond to previous sentences, but that he was a merciless offender whose serious sexual crimes were escalating in seriousness.

Clearly, m'lud has been watching too much daytime TV.

But, yes, in so far as we have an unrepentant sexual predator whose criminality is escalating, just like those tabloid reading morons said it would, what's going to happen in the next ten years to make him safe to be on the streets?

True Dat

This is from the US but it maps across perfectly to the 'envy of the whirled' vs the Legal Aid Money Tree.

Femiloons InAction: Compare & Contrast

Don't be shocked, but a prominent femiloon has been caught making stuff up.

Expect her to be denounced any minute now...

Also not being denounced: actual violence.

Can you guess why not?

A distraught mother has told how her daughter's violent ex-boyfriend was freed to murder her despite the family's desperate pleas for her to be given protection.

Care worker Nicola Sutton, 22, had been living in fear of Barry Stone who only served six months of an 18-month prison term for attacking her.

Convinced he would find her and kill her, she begged probation workers to bar him from her town, but was told that would breach his 'human rights', an inquest was told.

This is all further evidence for my theory that liberalism is now an entirely post-modern philosophy. Raging about fictional crimes makes perfect sense becuase, hey, she's revealing a deeper truth. Meanwhile, murders that don't fit the narrative are ignored lest they send the wrong message.

DJ's Amazing Facts

Libs like raising taxes, but not actually paying them.

The Nu Tories are a bunch of arrogant pigs who effortlessly combine the worst aspects of every social class.

Even an imploding economy can't stop the government spending money like a Premiership footy player with a day to live.

Steyn D'Jour

Did you hear the one about the guide dog and the gay hotelier?

This being Steyn, even when it sounds like a joke, there's a serious point:

[T]yranny is always whimsical. Which is exactly how the social engineers of the “human rights” nomenklatura like it. Because it legitimizes the state as the only valid mediator of social relations. And so in the cause of invented rights of near parodic absurdity, a profoundly wicked “human rights” apparatus is happy to destroy utterly the lives and livelihoods of blameless individuals.

Party Protocol For Extreme Extremists

Hey, anyone know if sending out party invitations to extremists with links to violent lunatics is a bad thing....

...or a good thing?

See, this why all liberal blather about 'right-wing extremism' boils down to dark hints about 'code words', 'dog whistling' and 'institutional racism'. There's simply no one on the mainstream right doing anything equivalent to inviting an unrepentant terrorist to relive his glory years at the site of one of his greatest hits. Ditto, note that for all the alleged extremism of the conservative base/the Daily Mail/the Blogopshere, it always turns to be the Guardian/BBC Axis of Snivel that pals around with savages (say, I wonder if Martin will turn out to be 'warm, funny and blunt' too)?

Steyn D'Jour

Actually, looking at those last two posts, I'm guessing we should start running a sweepstake on how soon it'll be before the Guardian/BBC Axis of Wibble starts running with the line that the Fiona Pilkington case is a really huge witch hunt (except, you know, with actual witches).

But wait....here come our PC PCs. Wouldcha'believe it? They claim the Clan Scumbag needs a police guard after receiving death threats. Dang! I guess we'll all have to stop talking about it rather than risk provoking one of those rampaging mobs of conservatives that are so much a feature of British life.

So for those of you keeping score at home, when it comes to defending vulnerable families, the police's resources fell down the stairs, guv, but political theatre meant to intimidate conservative critics into silence? Go, go, go!

I bet it's all the fault of the Daily Mail. But for any of our intestinally-challenged 'respectable conservative' friends out there who may be tempted to ease off, here's a post from the Great Steyn with a relevant point:

But, if we're talking about letting the Left "set the rules," Mr. Marcus's column reminded me of a larger point: Don't take your opponents at face value; listen to what they're really saying. What does the frenzy unleashed on Sarah Palin last fall tell us? What does Newsweek's "Mad Man" cover on Glenn Beck mean? Why have "civility" drones like Joe Klein so eagerly adopted Anderson Cooper's scrotal "teabagging" slur and characterized as "racists" and "terrorists" what are (certainly by comparison with the anti-G20 crowd) the best behaved and tidiest street agitators in modern history?

They're telling you who they really fear. Whom the media gods would destroy they first make into "mad men." Liz Cheney should be due for the treatment any day now...

The media would like the American Right to be represented by the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, decent old sticks who know how to give dignified concession speeches. Last time round, we went along with their recommendation. If you want to get rave reviews for losing gracefully, that's the way to go. If you want to win, look at whom the Democrats and their media chums are so frantic to destroy: That's the better guide to what they're really worried about.

Exactly. The left's imminent whining about a backlash is nothing more than confirmation that they're caught bang to rights. If 'respectability' means turning a blind eye to the hideous results of leftist lunacy, we extreme extremists are better off without it.

You Can Never Underestimate Liberal Morality

Don't speak too soon! The hipster pushback has already started.

Still, this set me thinking. These people keep telling us that, oh yes, they do hate paedophiles too, so what's missing from this case? Here we have a 43 year old individual who drugged and raped a girl he knew to be underage despite her clearly refusing consent. If sexual predation has any meaning at all, this is what it means, but gosh darn it! it turns out that even this doesn't clear the bar for hipster outrage. In what sense do they oppose paedophilia?

Anti-Social Behaviour Is A Fraud

NNW runs the latest from Alan Johnson through the liberal - English translator. Read, enjoy and think what it says about the MSM that Postman Pat is being put forward as an example of a politician who can pass as human.

It's always good to remind people that this is exactly the kind of case that the left said never happens. Like I keep saying, if liberals ever denounce vampires as a right-wing myth, start laying in the wooden stakes. Now we have on record just how liberals deal with thugs:

The parents from all five families received a letter warning that further action would be taken unless the behaviour ceased. While four families replied to the letter and were seen by the council officer, only the one family, who cannot be named, was believed to have “torn up” the letter and was never visited, Mr Grantham said.

Yes, the 'tearing up letters' gambit. If only Ronnie Biggs had thought of that.

Still, there is a land mine lurking under the right's position. When we accept slippery euphemisms like 'anti-social behaviour', we're implicitly accepting the left's view that, sure violent thuggery is kind of bad and all, but there's no need to use negative labels like 'criminal' and hey, can't we all just get a along?

What we're talking about is a police force turning a blind eye to persistent, violent criminality and a left that supports them in doing so, and for that their collective feet should be held to the fire.

Conservatives Hate Hot Chicks

Yep, time for another round of Open Border Theatre. As ever, it involves the No Borders Agency targeting a sympathetic illegal immigrant while ignoring the many and varied lunatics pouring into this country.

Steyn D'Jour

No wonder they get on so well with libs - they're seventh century post-modernists:

One sympathizes with Benjamin Netanyahu. But he’s missing the point. Ahmadinejad & co aren’t Holocaust deniers because of the dearth of historical documentation. They do so because they can, and because it suits their own interests to do so, and because in the regimes they represent the state lies to its people as a matter of course and to such a degree that there is no longer an objective reality only a self-constructed one.

Ayn Is Innocent!

Great post by NNW over here, but there's one thing I don't agree with. The whole 'Objectivism' thing was intended as a rebuttal to libertarianism which, even back then, was sliding rapidly downhill into the moral equivalence sludgebucket.

I'm sure Ayn Rand would be no friend to a police service that refused to actually provide any actual policing services. Equally, she would have no problem with condemning this kind of harassment as objectively wrong. Then again, you can say the same for Frank Field or, for that matter, Clement Atlee. It's not about the state.

We're not screwed because the state is too big or too small, we're screwed because our political culture is mired in exactly the kind of goofy relativism Rand predicted years ago. Some are liberals, some are libertarians, but all are firmly wedged in the Starbucks of the soul where objective reality is, like, squaresville, dude, vicious thugs are just sticking it to The Man and it's considered a winning argument to sonorously intone 'first they came for the violent headcases...'.

UPDATE:

Knew I had it somewhere....

Here's Ayn Rand on libertarianism:

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

UPDATE II:

Actually, the quote at the bottom of the page sums it up even better:

Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program

Motorists of No Appearance

It's a mystery, alright!

A Few Quick Comments On B-BBC

.... since, hey, it's not like I can comment over there. Not without Bill Gates stopping by to talk me through it so away we go:

That Was Then, This Is Now: Two weeks ago, the Beeboids were explaining in their usual charming way that, doh!, of course they didn't cover some stories. Obviously, their job was to filter the news, and only report truly important stuff.

Now suddenly, it turns out that they're just simple reporters, and so they report the news without comment, even if it's obviously garbage.

Guess That Wraps It Up For The Human Rights Act: Yes, indeed: Beeboids do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time slobbering over dictatorships. But how come all this never applies to Britain? After all, the NHS is 'the envy of the world' so we should be able to get by with even less rights than Cuba. We certainly have plenty enough social problems, but Universal Shami is never off the BBC. So how about it Beeboids? How about we take the kind of bold, decisive action the Chinese government is rightly famous for and string up the Law Lords before they invent another 600 human rights?

Context Now Racist: Wasn't it great to hear every Radio 2 news bulletin yesterday report that French Police had cleared a refugee camp of 'men, women and children'?

Seriously, when have you ever heard that phrase used outside of a war crime or similar atrocity?

In fact, the BBC was so anxious to cast this as an Oradour Sur Glane for the new century, they went with this line even though there weren't, strictly speaking, any women there.

Of course, it would be tempting to wonder how the BBC's bonkers invocation of the 'men, women and children' line meshes with its normal, snooty attitudes about bloggers and their 'inflammatory' language. But that would be to neglect the other chunk of humbug: what about the all-important context that professional journalists are supposed to supply, as opposed to the nasty 'shoot from the lip' world of blogging? Or, to put it another way, how come no one mentioned this?

Hey, that right there exposes the left's line as a load of bull. These people weren't cutesey victims who just wanted to make a life for themselves in Britain. Staggeringly enough, it turns out that illegal immigrants are criminals with absolutely no respect for our nation's laws or its people. The BBC chose not to suppress this story because, even in the BBC bubble, they know that complaining that our 'cruel' immigration laws keep sexual predators out of the country is not a winning strategy.

Slow Unwinding of British Civilisation Continues

Boss giving you a hard time at work? Call the cops!

Yes, indeed, they may not have known he was the boss, they might have thought he was just a paying customer, annoyed at being kept waiting while they sat around. Hmmmm... in sane countries that's not really much of an excuse.

Hey, say what you like about lawyers, but in twelve years they've managed to bring back all the problems of unionisation without any of the advantages. The reason these folks can behave like they do is because they know that sacking anyone is a legal minefield. Management doesn't run companies any more, they just act as liaison with the government - y'know, the body that hires people who can explain with a straight face how they did a great job except for the whole 'deaths' thing.

Verdict On Cold War Overturned On Appeal

Given that the left is normally obsessed with 'sending the right message', 'code words' and the like, I'm not sure this is a coincidence.

Is Your Journalist Stupid?

Zut alors! The Racism is everywhere! Now even babies are really huge raycists.

Only white babies though, obviously. There must be some kind of genetic damage present in their bloodlines that isn't present in superior races. Well, either that, or the Freepers are right and this really is the leftist version of Original Sin.

Still, one things for certain: clearly this prejudice prevents white people from fairly judging black people, even though they probably try and hide their prejudices behind stupid rationalisations like claiming the victim is an empty suit who hangs out with a freak show collection of Marxist lunatics and sounds like porky pig every time his Teleprompter breaks down.

Quote D'Jour

Via the Great Steyn, here's a perfect diagnosis of what ails conservatives:

The Tory story rarely varies. Whenever the centre-right wins an election, the centre-left allows that its opponents have the office, but denies they have the mandate. They can govern for a term, yes, but only by consensus, not according to their own lights. They may steer the bus to a mutually agreed destination. Driving it along a route of their choice is out of the question...

Some centre-right leaders in the United Kingdom and the United States haven't been as vulnerable to the syndrome of pussyfoot-conservatism as Canada's centre-right leaders. But even the least wobbly, Margaret Thatcher, say, and Ronald Reagan, weren't entirely impervious to it. With all their self-confidence and charisma, Thatcher and Reagan never radiated that cocksure, hubristic aura of self-righteous intellectual and moral conceit that's the hallmark of centre-left leaders from Pierre Elliott Trudeau to Barack Obama.