The Respectable Right Is Rubbish

Tim N rightly points out that the MSM's Licensed Conservatives sure seem comfortable with Putin-like behavior, providing it's aimed at enemies of *their* state.

In fact, it's worse than that. Say what you like about him, but Vlad never claimed to be one of those touchy-feely guys. Equally, whether he's Making Russia Great Again, or just stealing it piece by piece, at least he's thinking big.

Meanwhile, media conservatives make like they're Spartans at Thermopylae, fighting to their dying breath for muh justdis, muh umanrites, muh desensee... but ditch it all in a flash when there's a chance at a crappy newspaper column with some ludicrously self-aggrandising tagline like 'Jeff Tossari: The Man Who Calls It Like It Is'.

Of course, it's not just a British thing. From the sidebar at Ace's place:

Thought: Although conservatism argues for a lot of specific policy goals, there has always been a large part of what we call Republicanism that has never been anything more than a reflexive, steadfast defense of vested caste/class interests. We are entering the second year of discovering which "conservatives" have always been motivated primarily by what might be called Ruling Class Republicanism.

He expands on it here:

If there is going to be a law, then the law shall apply to all.

If the law does not apply to all, then there shall be no law at all.

This is not a novel, hard-to-understand, or revolutionary idea. We demand that we be treated equally. If a rule shall be inflicted on us, then we demand it be inflicted on the High Caste as well. If it is not to be inflicted on the High Caste, then we reject the rule as not a rule at all.

A rule which does not bind all men equally is not a rule. It is merely a partisan weapon.

It is, in fact, a marker of Caste privilege on the positive end and Caste disfavor on the negative end.

Why should anyone arbitrarily pushed into a Deplorable Caste willingly prop up the system of burdens and forbiddances which define the caste? Why wouldn't someone suddenly made into a member of a newly-invented Deplorable Caste by a newly-invented Media Aristocracy Caste reject the badges and markers of the Caste system wholesale?

I think what he means is kind of like where the courts decide some guy live streaming on Fakebook *near* to a courthouse is a terrible threat to justice, but a defendant being deprived of meaningful legal representation and instead being 'represented' by a government-appointed shill lawyer is just one of those things, you guys.

This is the bit our supposed betters just don't get. They really think we're too stupid to notice the contrast between their rote denunciations of the predators ('obviously, we all oppose gang rape...') and their frenzied ranting about the 'knuckle-draggers' who dare point out the utter failure of the legal system to deal with systemic sexual terrorism. Apparently, everyone - everyone - who finds this case a little fishy is a Nazi, but they're damned if they can find any underlying philosophy motivating the rape gangs....

These people genuinely think they just need another ten or so sneery articles about Tommy Robinson's past and the public will start to trust them again. They don't understand that the more they point out the skeletons in Robinson's closet, the more they're condemning themselves. No matter how bad this particular individual is, when it comes to the real issues, increasingly large numbers of the public still find *even him* more trustworthy than the Julians and Hugos in the MSM.

SJWs Always Project

As many have pointed out, the left no longer loses elections, instead every single time it turns out they got robbed by a massive, huge conspiracy designed to make them look like out of touch freaks.

Hence why we’ve had nearly two weeks of MSM drones trying to claim that Trump was elected thanks to a small group of brilliant – yet evil – psychological manipulators in the flat bit of England. How likely is it that Cambridge Analytics have the type of deep psychological knowledge that can swing elections? Consider the nature of the supposed whistleblower:

In the words of the Observer’s pink-haired, nerdish whistleblower, former CA employee Christopher Wylie….

You’d think a company full of supposed genius psychologists would spot an obvious kook, huh?

B O’N gets half way there:

These people are so entitled, they were so used to getting in their own way in politics, that as soon as something didn’t go their way they assumed that some massive, powerful, shadowy group must have warped the heads of us, the little people.

But there’s more to it than that: consider the actual scandal of the Nazi pug farce. 

Almost all MSM coverage has concentrated on the question of whether or not it’s actually funny. They take it as given that it’s the government’s role to deal harshly with Felony Unfunny. Barely a single MSM drone will ask if unlicensed comedy is really a serious social ill demanding state action. They just can’t imagine that each and every one of their own petty prejudices should not be enshrined in law.

Hence the meltdown over Brexit and Trump. It’s all projection. They’re convinced that the right will abuse power as badly as the left always does. It may be a good thing overall that the right doesn’t do this, but we ought to at least stop pretending that there's anything reasonable or respectable about the left's position.

Sauce For The Goose...

Don't be shocked, but the people who are freaked out by the idea that a country GP might want to own a target pistol think maniacs with guns are just loveable jack-the-lads.

Personally, I loved the bit where he claimed the family had no experience of the legal process.

Yeah, I'll bet.

 Not that it isn't always fun to see a member of the predator class whine about how they've lost their faith in the legal system, but I'm noticing a certain double standard here. The Scumbag In Question talks a lot about the truth, but never gets around to dealing with any actual 'facts'. You have to look elsewhere to see what they're really pushing:

In the months after his death Mr Duggan's family, along with the police and MPs, received an anonymous letter claiming Mr Duggan had been set up. Mr Underwood said: "That letter alleged that a Trident officer had hatched a plan with an informant to arrange for Mark Duggan to pick up the gun from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. "The allegation was that the informant said he could persuade Mark Duggan to pick up the gun and then the police could catch him. "What the letter goes on to suggest was that that would lead to Mr Duggan being shot dead as anything less than doing that would reveal the identity of the informant."

He was set up by being forced to carry a illegal fire arm round with him. Hey, it could happen to anyone. Who hasn't been visiting a friend and had them say 'if you're going down town, can you drop this uzi off for me'?

 Still, since the Guardian is apparently taking seriously anonymous letters alleging huge conspiracies (which may or may not have copied in Messers Sue, Grabbit & Runne), I guess that means they can't really dispute intelligence reports so specific they even named the firearms supplier?

I mean, that is kind of the issue here: the utterly demented nature of the modern left, which wants us to believe any old nonsense put out there by violent thugs but disregard anything from anyone who might conceivably vote conservative.

Meanwhile, in related news, no one from this family has yet been offered a column in the Guardian.

Truthers Gone Wild!

Laban points out a guy who's blown the lid! off the death of St Jean the Martyr.

Yes, indeed. It's easy to mock, but mainstream Trutherism isn't much better these days. Here my old pal Tommy explains how just because the Truthers couldn't even get a verdict against Captain Chaos herself, Cressida Dick, she's still, like, totally guilty:

Yes, the jury in the "health and safety" show trial - used by the state to put the matter on hold until it was "old news" [it was a conspiracy to hide the conspiracy? - DJ] - specifically exonerated Ms Dick [well, quite - DJ]. Perhaps the lethal errors were all made after she - as Gold Commander - transferred control to CO19. Certainly there is no proof she was involved in discrediting an innocent victim in the disgraceful campaign of lies and spin which followed Jean-Charles's murder [yep, it's another conspiracy theory - DJ]. Perhaps history will even remember her for her role as head of the Metropolitan Police's "Diversity Directorate" more than for that day of national disgrace [opinion stated as fact without supporting argument - DJ]. Perhaps.

The question still remains. In honouring a woman whose name is tied to that monstrous injustice, what message, dear reader, does our Prime Minister intend to convey? [Message? How about 'YOU LOSE, LOSERS'? - DJ]

Still, don't get the feeling I'm bracketing Indymedia guy with the mainstream of Trutherism. After all, at least our pal from Bristol's conspiracy theory is internally consistent. Once you accept his fundamentally loopy premise, the rest of it hangs together. That sets him apart from the rest of the Truther movement.

Indeed, not to give aid and comfort to the insane, but if Truthers are genuinely enraged over their failure to land a glove on their hate figures, they might want to try producing a coherent story. It speaks to the essential bigotry driving this movement that no explanation is required for just why, say, police officers would cooperate with a vast conspiracy to terminate a small-time crook. They're pigs, it's what they do, init?

UPDATE:

Walk them cats back! An anonymous commentor claims to be shocked - shocked! -that anyone could call Truthers conspiracy nuts, claiming they just question police procedures, to which I reply thus:

i/ the only way the death of St Jean could have got more publicity would have been if he was riding along with Princess Di. In so far as the Truthers have been trying to blow the lid! on this case for nearly five years, I think we can safely conclude all the answers are in. They may not like them, or believe them, but there's something deeply gutless about claiming they're just 'asking questions'. They're not, they're making accusations and they should come out and say that - although, to be fair, Tommy certainly does that, which leads on to point two...

ii/ If the Truther were really just concerned about procedures, they'd write about that, instead of ranting about 'Death Squads' and the like. Au contrair, from the start the Truther movement regarded this case as a Rosetta Stone that exposed dark forces that were secretly pulling the strings behind the scenes in the sham democracy of the United KKKingdom.

It's way too late to pretend they're just concerned about how cops do their thing.

Bombings Vs Radio: I Always Get Those Two Confused

In so far as Jackie Smith justified banning US radio talker Michael Savage with this...

"I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country,"

...I guess that means we now have tougher criteria to visit Britain than to move here. Up until ten minutes ago, the merest mention of British values would have liberals foaming at the mouth about The Racism.

True, for those of us outside the loony cult of open borders, there's a certain superficial logic to the government's position, but only if you don't think about it.

Nope, the left's position is absurd, but it does neatly expose just how bogus the whole 'right-wing extremism' thing is. Liberals were specifically searching for right-wing loons to balance up the jihadis and they came up with.... a guy on the radio?

Really? How did that intelligence briefing go then?

"The next extremist is a Mr Michael Savage. We consider him highly dangerous, with a record of biting commentary, sharp words and pointed commentary. Furthermore, sources inform us that he is experimenting with funny voices, which will give him the capability to produce a range of caricatures. In particular, we suspect he'll soon be unveiling a greedy bureaucrat called 'Mr Taxey', an Obama-loving news anchor called Joe Grovel, and an unhinged gay rights activist who keeps threatening the life of anyone who opposes him...

No, wait, sorry I was reading Alan Duncan's file."

Hey, that's an actual fact. Alan Duncan has threatened the life of more people than Michael Savage, so how come Al's just a loveable jack-the-lad, and Mike's a dangerous extremist?

Hmmmm... isn't it the open borders lobby that keeps insisting the whole citizen/non-citizen thing is an evil right-wing trick - even to the point of absurdity? If Michael Savage is being discriminated against while British citizens get away with far harsher rhetoric, isn't that kind of.....racist?

Sounds like a job for Cherie!