Red On Red

Now do you believe me?

Like I keep saying, Ken Clarke is the John Prescot of the Tory Party. Just like the other fat fraud, we keep getting told that Clarke is in touch with the man in the street, but the only evidence for this is endless columns by media luvvies claiming that Clarke's boorishness is proof of authenticity. Appointing this tool as the voice of the conservative base is just a roundabout way of stereotyping grass roots conservatives, just as Lord Two Jags was a Northern Uncle Tom.

Of course, that's not to say the left aren't full of it too. They're enraged becuase someone tried to excuse evil by coming out with a load of blabber about nuance? And? Did he infringe on their patents or something?

Liberals have spent years finger-wagging about the crudity of the common herd, and their goofy ideas about good and evil. Now they're trying to convince us that they just can't bear to see a felon go free?

Hell, liberals even have a long history of taking out onions for sex offenders, providing the victims are under the age of majority. For proof of this, consider how none of them have found anything exceptional in Clarke's claim that statutory rape is no big thing, if the victim consents.

So the guy running the justice system doesn't understand the concept of 'age of consent' and no one on the left thinks that's a problem? Of course.

For that matter, what's with the femiloons complaining about trivialising rape? These people claim that everything in the whole world is just like being raped. What is the whole date rape thing if not an attempt to expand the definition of rape to the point of absurdity? Meanwhile, the central feature of Clark's plan is to give actual, genuine rapists a cut in their sentences, and feminists have nothing to say about it.

And then there's this....

On Wednesday, Browne, a 45-year-old mother of two who was attacked in 2003 by a serial sex offender freed from prison early, broke down in tears as she confronted Kenneth Clarke....

She's a liberal heroine!

It is significant that her voice cracked with emotion on BBC Five Live, not when she recounted the assault she endured, but when she described her fight to bring her attacker to justice, which, she says, won't be over until Sierra Leone-born Mohammed Kendeh, currently in prison for yet another crime, is finally deported. Kendeh, who attacked her in a park as she trained for the London Marathon, has thus far avoided deportation by claiming a right to a family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – a defence that Browne says is an insult to his many victims, who may never recover.

She's a raycist!

Plus, you'll never guess what....

"My attacker had previously sexually assaulted six other women in the same park, and escaped a custodial sentence. He was in prison for burglary but because he was released after four months of his 13-month sentence, he was free to attack me."

Liberals complaining about the justice system being soft on predators is like Ken Clarke calling people fat.

Reminder: Feminism Is A Parasitic Ideology

As analogies go, I'm thinking waving £50 notes in front of a homeless guy's face is more like it, still it is interesting to see even a social conservative like Laban taking a hard line on this.

Behold the power of the Dark Side!

Heh. But there's a serious point here: in so far as mainstream social conservatism turns a blind eye to the rise of feminism, it has condemned itself to ever-increasing irrelevance. Indeed, in so far as socio-cons' white knighting instincts lead them to defend even the most deranged behaviour by the New Grrrl Order, there is often little to choose between them and feminists when push comes to shove.

All of this matters because for all the blather about empowerment, the defining feature of feminism is its parasitic nature. Even these stupid marches are proof of that:

The SlutWalk London website states more should be done to protect victims.

Never mind the logic fail - surely the point of protection is that they won't be victimised in the first place - who's going to provide this protection? Since the marchers claim to be marching on behalf of the whole female species, it mus be some other sex they're expecting to sort all this out.

In other words, these misandric loonies claim that the very people they denounce should do everything possible to protect them, even as they themselves disavow any responsibility for their own survival. Or to put it another way, they want men to continue to act on their traditional feelings of chivalry, while they demonstrate their contempt for the same traditions.

Hey, the KKK might have had some wacky ideas, but even they didn't expect their victims to string themselves up.

Authorities Do Not Yet Have A Motive Clue

Interesting Philosophical Question: do these people come out with this brand of garbage because they're stupid enough to believe it, or just because they think we are?

'Shut Up!' He Explained, 'Up Yours!' They Replied

Talking of the evil Daily Mail reading masses, how about that referendum, huh? Who knew that arranging for a column of Metropolitan luvvies to demand the public vote their way wouldn't work?

That was the honking great crack that ran through the whole 'Yes' campaign. They talked about fairer votes and fixing democracy even as they ran one of the most avowedly elitist campaigns in history. The more they claimed that voting 'Yes' was the choice of the A-listers, the more they reminded people just how detached these people were from their own lives.

Libertarianism: Supporting The Human Right To Leave Horses' Heads In People's Beds

I find that blogs with 'Liberty' in the title are generally awful - so NNW had the field to himself after all.

Still, NNW scores a bulls eye on the essential humbuggery of libertarianism: for folks who profess to be all about the freedom, they aren't half certain about what views will and won't be permitted in the New Libertarian Order.

Ditto, with the other elephant in the room. Consider what we're talking about: the supposed right of a small group of fanatics to issue threats to wreck an event supported by millions of their fellow citizens. Where's the liberty in allowing lunatics to impose themselves on other people?

Knee-jerk scepticism of authority is just gullibility standing on it's head. Instead of blindly accepting violence from the state, it's blindly accepting it becuase it's not from the state. Ditto, there's no point libertarians trotting out that dreadful old cliché 'pre-crime' then seamlessly shifting into talk of 'slippery slopes'. Perhaps we ought to start calling 'slippery slope' arguments 'pre-tyranny'?

But there's something more to it than all that. Consider this charming comment:

I hold that liberty has a higher purpose and is an awful lot messier than simply making the world safe, fluffy and Disneyfied for readers of the Daily Mail.

It is double minded to claim decency when dissenters are rounded up and locked away, although it is easier to rationalise when they are demonised as loons or closet Marxists.

Uh huh. Looks like it won't just be certain opinions that aren't allowed in the New Libertarian Order. Mind you, considering the Daily Mail is Britain's best selling newspaper, I'm guessing there's going to have to be a whole lot of liberating going on before Utopia arrives.

Alarmist? Consider the implications of that comment: violent lunatics are merely 'dissenters' meanwhile opponents of extremist thuggery want a world that's fluffy and Disneyfied. In other words, not only is violence a valid means of political action, but those who oppose violence are, by definition, contemptible and weak.

This belief in violence not only as a means to an end but as purifying force, sweeping away the bourgeois conventions of a society that is both corrupt and corrupting is an avowedly fascist idea, all the more so when combined with contempt for the Daily Mail reading masses. At least Marxists put it more poetically when they talk of a 'Democracy of the Committed' but the end result is the same: a totalitarian vision of a world reborn in violence and blood-shed.

All of which leads to the dirty little secret that really gets under libertarian skins. These loons wanted a revolution, instead they got briefly detained by the police. This isn't a story about heroism and repression, it's a story about a bunch of juvenile prats being prevented from acting out by agents of the state using a minimum of force and with the support of the vast majority of the Great British Public. And libertarians think this is a winning issue for them? Some day soon we're going to find out that the libertarian movement is being secretly run out of the Home Office.

Best Comment So Far On Bin Laden's Death Scene

Over at NRO:

Wow, Obama really does hate rich people! Bin Laden moves up from a cave to a mansion and Barack wacks him.

Hey, we're just lucky the Yanks found him before we did, otherwise there's no telling how much money Dave would have given him.