Sunday, March 22, 2009


Who knows? The next one could be crazed Buddhists.

Liberals 4 Self-Defence

Hey, who knew? Turns out liberals are all for using force to defend your home and family after all. Well, they are under certain, special circumstances.

Other folk aren't as lucky.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, we have a guy leaving the safety of his house to attack someone who might threaten him, should he succeed in breaking in, who uses a knife on an unarmed man, stabbing him multiple times, including in the back. By my count that's a least four points the CPS would use to try and hang Joe Public, but the legal establishment does all but offer to clean the knife for him. Meanwhile, using a weapon on a steroid-enhanced thug with a record of violent insanity and a penchant for going round tooled up results in the government bending over backwards to try and get a conviction, plus when the inevitable happens, they get all snippy:
Detective Chief Inspector Mick Atkinson, the senior investigating officer, said.. “We would urge anyone who feels under threat in a situation like this one to contact police at the earliest opportunity and not take the law into their own hands.
So shooting someone who's actually broken in is taking the law into your own hands, but charging out the house to go all Norman Bates on some drunk guy who's murdered a window? That gets this:
They said Mr Bunglawala called the police when he became aware that the man had got into a porch area and was kicking the front door, breaking a window in the process.

The lawyers say their client then got a knife in an attempt to scare off the man.

Last week, the Crown Prosecution Service said Mr Bunglawala had no case to answer.

Mr Bunglawala had good reason to fear, not only for his own safety but for that of his wife and children.
At least he only used a knife instead of something really dangerous, like an airgun. For that matter, at least Tony Martin shot a member of a whole gang of felons who had actually broken into his house. On the other hand, the prospect of some law-abiding guy getting a little lost after too much Vitamin XXX and being sliced and diced by a vigilante householder is exactly the type of case liberals always wheel out to prove the public can't be trusted to defend themselves.

Hey, I'm all for libs finally acknowledging that there is something completely bonkers about laws that require householders to actually wait until scumbags have forced their way into their home, before allowing them to apply a carefully calibrated use of force, ceasing immediately the assailant is neutralised, but instinct tells me there's a little something else going on here.

Labour: Hereditary Lords, No! Hereditary MPs, Yes!

The most impressive thing about both main parties holding a fire sale of their principles is that they've both managed to pick up only the worst aspects of their opponents. That's how we ended up with Tories that denounce the productive sector while singing the praises of the public sector gravy train. Meanwhile, we have a People's Party where people resign from public office to spend less time with their family.

Hmmmmm.... I guess 'diversity' has its limits after all. I'm also sure that giving your little poppet a safe seat for her birthday is pretty much the antithesis of socialism.

Liberal Heroism: Like A Man Throwing Himself On A Live Grenadine

Oooooh, get her!
The Judge told them: 'It would be very easy for me, and there are many that would congratulate me, if I locked you up for as long as I could.'
See, that: boldly standing up in the face of the lynch mob. Truly, he's the Atticus Finch of Teeside.

But wait... who exactly are these people he's defying? Anyone - anyone at all -in his social circle? Or able to influence his life in any way?

Nada. The only thing that guy's risking is developing a bruise on the back from all his fellow hipster trash congratulating him on his courage in standing up to the vulgar Daily Mail-reading masses and their horribly unnuanced views on crime and punishment (i.e. that one should follow the other).

Liberalism is bad enough on first principles without having to listen to members of our incestuous elite hailing their own heroism in standing up to the guy in the street.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

He's Doing The Job The British Just Won't Do

Mind you, someone should tell him he's in the wrong party.

I'll See Your Hag And Raise You A Skank

NNW points to a charming example of British womanhood. She's quite a hag, but I can beat that. Check it out. Dr H and pals give her the treatment, so I've got nothing to add except to say that I loved this bit:
But, seriously, if a man takes a risk [of having sex], he has to face the consequences.
Huh? Surely she's not saying men should be 'punished with a baby'?

And thus was refuted the myth that feminism had produced a generation of spoilt princesses.

The Process Is The Punishment (Part 2404)

Hey, remember those evvvvvvvil raycists who abused innocent 'Asian' anti-war activists in Luton? Well, you never guess guess but....

Yep, released without charge. Which is to say arrested on bogus grounds, put through the mill, smeared in the press, then released just as soon as our PC PCs have to front up with some evidence. Who'd have thunk it?

Equally shocking: the same MSM which supplies us with the names of folks who aren't actually guilty of anything at all, are kind of coy when reporting on the possible motivations of rioting scumbags. Clearly, they must be a Mob of No Appearance. True, the distinctly non-diverse mob in the photo does hint at the truth, as does the cringingly dhimmi response from the Head, but from the MSM reporting you'd think the teacher in question was a Mathematician of No Affiliation. Guess his lessons must have been a real blast, eh?

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

This Week's 'National Curriculum Still Not Full Enough' Story

After years of ostentatious non-judgementalism, liberal educrats have finally found an issue where the morality is absolute. Yep: it's the war on chocolate. Actually, I think they've got a point, they really are teaching the kids a valuable lesson, namely the difference between liberals and conservatives. Hey, kids, not only do we not rob your sweeties, we think it should be legal to shoot anyone who does.

Still, you have to say this: it certainly throws the achievements of Ronaldus Magnus into sharp relief. In 1980, still deep in the Cold War, we lived with the possibility of millions of Marxist savages storming westwards, then suddenly the stoppidy-stoopid B-movie actor got elected and now Marxists are reduced to taking candy from babies.

Short summary: Marxists wanted to conquer Western Europe, but now they have to settle for seizing the Galaxy instead. Also, the Twix and the Kit-Kats. They're not against all chocolates though - in fact, the management appears to be 99% Flakes. Here's the Hag-in-Chief herself:
Headmistress Deborah Metcalf said: 'We were finding that some children could be bringing in crisps, a Mars bar and can of Coke with their lunches. This stance is trying to work with parents to provide a healthy meal for their children.'
Yes, seizing other people's property in order to try and conscript their children into your hippy-dippy, New Age junk science cult counts as working with parents, much as the guy with a machete and a balaclava works with passers-by to re engineer their financial arrangements.

But let's just take time-out to check the scorecard here: liberal educrats claim educayshun is kind of like brain surgery, but extra hard, and so no one who hasn't spent at least year smoking pot studying education at a teacher training college can possibly have any useful input. On the other hand, it turns out fitness and nutrition are so easy even semi-literates who've never held down a real job and couldn't give you the formula for ice can decide what every one else should eat. Makes you wonder why Arsenal make such a song and dance about it all, right?

Of course, that leads on to the other factor. Back in the day, we could eat just about anything without weight being an issue. Hey, it's almost like there's some other factor that's missing....

But that's the thing. Horrible liberal hags screech about the dangers of obesity, but when it comes to the one thing that always works to get rid of fat? Nope, things are bad, but not bad enough to justify actual exercise.

Hmmmm... is it just me, or are other people beginning to suspect that it isn't really about health, after all. Hey, not only do predictions of an Impending Fatocalyspse make the whole Global Warming thing look like hard science, at least Al Gore doesn't have an enormous CO2-eating machine sitting unused in his loft (For the benefit of any teachers reading this, CO2 is the chemical formula for carbon dioxide).

As with the other example Julie points out, liberals seem to have adopted the belief that the law is a Lamarckian project, growing new nodules as the need arises. People flying airliners into buildings was one thing, but kids eating chocolate? Suddenly, it turns out that the whole 'human rights' thing is a bit of a drag after all....

Yes, I know what you're thinking: can we stop with the incessant whining about racial profiling at airports if we use teachers to search the lunatics dressed as Osama Bin Laden? It's a tempting thought, but the terrorists might be offended by their extremist anti-western views.

After all, it's not just the appalling governmental thuggery on display here. There's also the terrible science. Eating chocolate at 10 years old can make you fat in later life? Huh? How does that work? Really: these people should be locked in a small room until they can come up with a plausible mechanism to explain how chocolate bars ingested in 2009 can suddenly re materialise in the gut in 2025. Where does it go in between?

Nope, fat thirty-somethings got that way because of what they're doing now, not what they did back in the Reagan years. Losing weight isn't that hard: eat less, exercise more, except now the debate has been hijacked by screechy dimbulbs like Deborah Metcalf, trying to use it to download their frustrations at being going-nowhere, idiot losers. Enough already: there is nothing in a whole truck load of Yorkie bars quite as toxic or liable to lead to failure as letting Junior be influenced by these worthless members of Britain's self-selecting underclass.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Dangerous Extremist Captured!

I'm thinking the threat to free speech isn't coming from the right....

Like I said, police officers deciding whether or not to arrest people depending on what particular views they're espousing is pretty much 180' to any rational concept of 'free speech'.

On the plus side, at least they're concentrating on the really dangerous individuals, instead of harmless eccentrics like this guy.

Steyn D'Jour

Steyn with more reasons why Cameronism sucks:
A “social liberal/fiscal conservative” is not necessarily a girly-man, more of a pre-op transsexual.It would be nice to be able to have it both ways, like that so-called “pregnant man” out on the West Coast — and, incidentally, didn’t Ahnuld play a pregnant man in some movie a decade or so back? Why, so he did: Junior. I remember the poster, the leading man with a swollen belly — like a girly-man governor about to give birth to a big bloated budget. The problem with being “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” is that most of the social liberalism comes with quite a price tag — just have a ten-minute riffle through the non-stimulus bill....

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

BBC: Fantasy Oppression > Real Oppression

The BBC was up to its usual tricks on the Jeremy Vine Show today. They had a debate about those jovial 'anti-war protesters' in Luton or, more specifically, about whether or not they should have the right to protest in the first place.

I keed! I keed!

As if the BBC would ever 'debate' anything. The bases were loaded right from the start, with a full-on Islamofascist on one side, while on the other side there was.... another Muslim. So let me get this right: when someone is accused of 'Islamophobia' the BBC interview a Muslim, and when Muslims are accused of Infidelophobia, the BBC interviews a Muslim. A-huh.

Needless to say, not once during the debate did the host feel obliged to mention the name 'Geert Wilders' or the approximately one bazillion 'hate speech' prosecutions in Britain. To the point, did the people who opposed the Jihadist's right to scream abuse at the troops really hate free speech, or they did they just want the law to be applied equally?

Which is where the biggest, fattest bias came in. Unless you were listening closely you wouldn't have picked up that two people were arrested at the demonstration, and you certainly wouldn't know they were people counter-demonstrating. That's the real issue.

You can call for restrictions on free speech or you can call for a First Amendment free for all, there are arguments either way, but what we have here was people allowed to scream abuse at their fellow citizens, while police officers arrested anyone who exercised their right to dissent. There is no objective criteria by which you can judge screaming abuse at soldiers to be 'free speech' but counter-protesting to be 'hate speech'. In so far as the police were discriminating between different groups of demonstrators based purely on the views they were expressing, this was the antithesis of free speech.

Of course, it's no wonder the BBC doesn't see the danger in police officers arresting people for being too harsh on Islamofascists. After all, it's not like that's going to affect anyone at the BBC, is it?

National Curriculum Still Not Full Enough

In so far as teachers are always claiming to be overworked, it's funny how there's always time for this stuff:
Parents face possible court action for withdrawing their children from lessons on gay and lesbian history.

More than 30 pupils were pulled out of a week of teaching at a primary school which included books about homosexual partnerships.
Don't be shocked, but it tends to a little more than this for liberals to act normally:
From September 2001 to February this year, the court was told, the older daughter, Emma, had attended only 55 out of 190 school registrations - a 29% record.

Her younger sister attended 64 of 190 school sessions - a 34% attendance rate.
Never mind what liberals are doing to the world - consider what they're doing to the English language:
A spokesman for Waltham Forest Council said: ‘As part of the borough’s policy of promoting tolerance in our schools, children are taught that everyone in our society is of equal value.
Everyone's of equal value but only some are equal enough to be given public money and classroom time to indoctrinate the kids, plus if you object you're some kind of fascist, and they'll use the power of the state to persecute you.

I'd let all this go except this case neatly undercuts two of the more absurd principles of Cameronism.

No one's benefited more from Cameron's obsession with 'reaching out' to minority groups than the special people. The Dave did all but announce plans to make Kylie's birthday a bank holiday, all in the belief that these people were just ready to jump onboard just as soon as those horrible socio-cons were exorcised. Hey, how's that worked out?

Well, here's a brutal piece of governmental thuggery being carried out on their behalf, so why aren't the usual suspects out there chanting 'Not In My Name'? Usual disclaimer applies - no one's expecting crimpers to throw down their tongs and rush out into the street, but how about the folks who are always raging about the Pope? More specifically, how about the pretendey-cons? Doesn't conservatism have something to say about schools being hijacked by ideologically driven nuts and used to undermine parents? Anything at all?

Ditto, the other Deep Thought of (or possibly rationalisation for) Cameronism, namely the idea that everything else is just a distraction from winning seats in the house. Suppose the Tories do win a majority? What then? This case is a glimpse of the future.

The law already allows parents to withdraw their children from religious and sex education, but the school decided to get round it by classifying these lessons - gay penguins and all - as history. That's a lesson right there. The Tories can do whatever they want in Westminister, but out in the country they're going to run up against people like this sticking two fingers up to the clearly expressed will of Parliament.

The choices for the Tories are to embrace full-on Cameronism and accept, at best, Parliament engaging in an endless game of Whack-A-Mole to try and plug each and every loophole that allows teachers to push their own loopy agenda or, alternatively, to fight the culture war. After all, why should activist loonies be able to use public money to pursue their own nutbunny agenda? More to the point, how did conservatism get so beat down that this is even an issue?

Well, I can't be sure about the answer to that last question, but I'm guessing the answer involves years of proto-Cameronesque triangulation. Well, enough already. Conservatives can either have the Tories in power but not in office, passing ineffectual legislation for the activists to samba around, or they take these loonies on. There is no third way.

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Cooo-ee! Liberals, Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are!

Hmmm... back when I first pointed out how the BBC was refusing to cover the full story behind the murder of Robert Knox, the usual suspects in the comments at B-BBC claimed that, gosh darn it, the BBC's crack newshounds were chomping at the bit to report the full story, but they were hog-tied by the fact the trial was on-going.

Never mind that - to take but two cases - Anthony Walker was barely cold before the BBC labelled his death racially-motivated, nor that for weeks after the shooting of Rhys Jones, you couldn't turn on the radio without hearing Beeboids speculating about the role of gang culture. That was different.

Well, Beeboids, I got some good news for you: it's over! So have at it. Time for the reporters to start checking out the word on the street, putting the story in context, running down leads... y'know, all that stuff journalists do

You, Not Them

Laban suspects that the central insanity of liberaliam is its Rousseauesque belief that man is naturally good. When the inevitable head-on impact with reality occurs, liberal governments find themselves forced to become more and more authoritarian, in order to make a silk purse out of a philosophical sow's ear

It's a tempting thought, but with a couple of problems. There's the obvious flaw that the split is not really a left/right one. I can't see the Great Frank falling for all this garbage. On the other hand, man being prevented from achieving true greatness by the dead hand of society. Hmmmmm.... who does that sound like?

Personally, I think this ideology is best described as 'hipsterism' - a train wreck fusion of the worst aspects of liberalism and libertarianism. Think of them as people who break into your house, shoot your dog then claim the state made them do it.

The other, bigger problem is this: they might think you are a blank slate, but that just proves you need the guiding hand of supa-smart people, like what they is.

For proof of this consider their new baby seals. Large parts of the hipster movement have spent years explaining how Che or Blackbeard were really martyrs to true freedom, but even they can't think of anything positive to say about paedophiles. Nope, it's all about how the anti-paedophile movement is, like, kind of chavvy, and they're all a mobby mob, and most of them don't even own iPhones, and... blah, blah, blah.

There are no actual arguments there, we never find out why they believe what they claim to believe, even in the teeth of all the evidence. We're just supposed to take it on trust that the mark of true genius is to find the nuance in child rape - well, that and if you can't, you're a stoopidy-stoopid prole.

So it goes for huge swathes of modern culture. Crucifix in urine? Are you saying that's not art, Mr Moron T Moron? Trying to recover from an unsustainable credit binge by loosening up credit? Obviously the right thing to do. Then there's...

No, the Rosseau thing is purely tactical. They get to sneer at Dullsville conservatives with their dreary 'morals', objective standards and all the other things our new aristocracy lacks. Instead, we're supposed to take their sneering, eye-rolling contempt for everyone that isn't a member of their incestuous, self-referential cult as somehow proof of superior intelligence.

We're being governed by a high school clique writ large. And things are screwed up? Really? Who'd have thunk it?

Monday, March 02, 2009

A Very Special Episode Of BBC Bias

When I first heard about this, I just assumed someone had screwed up and produced an episode that actually reflected the demographics of the East End after years of open borders. But no: it's the BBC fighting racism by ethnically cleansing the natives, except....
The corporation refused to say if the writers for the episode were black and said many people contribute to the story-lines of EastEnders episodes.
Now, is that modern liberalism in a nutshell or what? The jokes write themselves - and they'd have to, because these guys aren't going to. Debate is not their thing, instead we get this:
When Chelsea quizzed Trueman, played by Rudolph Walker, he reflected on the racism he encountered when he first arrived in Britain.

At one stage he said things have improved for black people in Britain and there is less racism.

But Chelsea questioned: 'Have they? It's still there, though. It might not be as obvious as it once was, but we all know.'
See? Even when there's no evidence of racism that just proves it's really well-hidden racism. This is, as the geeks would say, completely unfalsifiable. Absence of evidence turns out to be evidence too. It's also kind of familiar:
But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were - in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State
This is the logic of a cult. More to the point,it is the very definition of partial broadcasting. I guess we're all supposed to hail the BBC's crusading zeal (uh, can we still say that) even as the self-same people tie themselves in knots denying the BBC has an agenda.

Like I keep saying, as biased as the BBC's reporting is, it's nothing to what they try and get away with once they don't even have to pretend to be factual. Of course, liberals do have to try and force their little messages down our throat during their girly plays - reality is not kind to them.