Thought On God, Man And Judges

MH detects a note, nay, even a whole symphony, of humbuggery from those Metropolitan Liberals professing to be shocked - shocked! - that Blair is a liar and took the country into war. These people were onboard when Blair smeared a 92 year old woman whose family had the temerity to complain about lousy treatment from the NHS. They backed him launching a war to hand over part of someone else's country to Islamic fundamentalists (hey, Liberals, any closer to finding those 100 000 dead Kosovans yet ?). But when he went after a murderous dictator, well, that's just going too far.

In a similar vein, he rightly points out one of the most revealing aspects of the media's B16 meltdown - the fact they're absolutely freaked out by the idea of a man who knows his own mind and says what he means. What's his angle with all this religion stuff, anyway ?

Liberals have been outraged over Peter the C's comment that at least B16 has the right enemies. That's far too shallow for our deep thinking members of the Bush=Hitler fraternity. Apparently, you're supposed to consider Liberal objections on their merits rather than consider the fact that they're coming from people who've always hated Christianity anyway. But are we really not supposed to remember that these people have been wrong about every issue since about 1975 ? More to the point, PC is exactly right that just about every L3 face card has been banging away on the ol' Smear-A-Matic since the election of B16 was announced and what's been the result of this Liberal feeding frenzy ? Ah yes.... I thought these people were scrapping the bottom of the barrell with Bush=Hitler, but now it's Pope=Catholic, we have to face facts: it's time we left the Left to die with dignity.

That might sound harsh, but hey - it's the spirit of the age. After all, the Left is still busy trying to bury Charlotte Wyatt. Of course, she was doomed to die last September except she's still alive but now she's totally double-doomed with swords, oakleaves and gold cluster. After all, three separate judges have pronounced her case hopeless. Oops, no: Mr Justice Hedley pronounced sentence of death first time round then he's reviewed his own decision twice and found it to be perfect. Apparently, without the facility of judicial review, the Army would be massacring innocent Iraqis, cops would be filing witness statements in the incinerator and pharmaceutical companies would be marketing cyanide-based products - but you can take this whole independent oversight thing too far.

Interestingly, the Left has chosen this case to showcase its commitment to open government. Laban Tall - who's been on it from the start - passes on the modest scope of the injunction on reporting this case:

A revised Injunction Order has been made in the Family Division of the High Court, dated 27 September 2004, (Mr Justice Hedley) regarding Charlotte Wyatt. The order made is exceptionally wide, prohibiting any reporting, in words or images, that may lead not only to the baby's identification but also to her medical condition, any of her family, where she is being treated, her medical team, or the trusts and hospitals for whom they work. If in any doubt please consult a staff lawyer before publishing.

I'm thinking horse/stable door as far as much of that goes, but as for the rest ? Huh ? The Left professes to be horrified at the prospect of Al-Quaida scumbags being convicted on the basis of secret evidence - well, here's a death sentence and the courts don't want you to know, well, anything really. How on Earth can they justify that ? Is it just me, or is the Left pulling the old debate/hate trick again.

What we are talking about are the actions of State employees at a State-owned hospital. This is certainly more worthy of public interest than the latest twist in the Wayne/Colleen saga, but no - best not to say anything, lest we stir up the crazed mass of Christians. When it comes to the Religion of Peace, the Left sounds just like Monty Python: 'September 11 was a one off, there'll never be another incident like September 11 or Bali. Just a couple of isolated incidents. No reason to let a pair of freak incidents like September 11, Bali and Madrid…Three isolated incident…' But mention Christians and the Left professes to be terrified at the thought of B16's crazed minions rampaging round the country. Respectful though I normally am of Liberal's point of view, I just can't see that a country where a child can be condemned to death on rapidly disintegrating scientific evidence and the say so of a single judge is necessarily at risk of falling under a crazed Christian theocracy.

Then again, the Left never could really understand this Chrisitanity thing anyway. Blimpish goes dumpster diving and reveals an early draft of the Guardian's report on the election of B16.

Return Of The Kremlinologists

Soviet paranoia meant that for most of the time during the Cold War we didn't really know much of what went on behind the Iron Curtain. Hence, the reliance on Kremlinologists, the folks who assured us that the fact that Trud had a front page article praising farmers in Belorus really indicated that the KGB was losing power in the Politburo. In other words, the political equivalent of tealeaf readers. That's what you're stuck with when you're dealing with a government that lies like a rug and a puppet press.

I thought that was all behind us but now, fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, it seems we need our own Kremlinologists to work out what's going on in this country. We get the official line on the War on Terror, the media eats it up with a spoon, then we hear reports like this. This is the perfect barometer of how low British journalism has sunk: from William Howard Russell to Basil Fawlty in 150 years.

It's Evil....But I Love It!

Quote D'Jour

Our future PM details the Prince of the Platinum Bandwith's hysterical reaction to the news that the Pope is a Catholic, which reminds me of the perfect rebutal over at the Animal House. Take it away #190 a.k.a. Aksuperior:

Listen up, Gay Marri... I mean, Andrew Sullivan:

It's a religion, not a democracy. God doesn't focus-group questions of Right and Wrong.

If you don't like it, there are plenty of religions that would be happy to have you. You'll find them long on acceptance but short on liturgy, meaning, and spiritual satisfaction. But at least their version of Jesus gives a big thumbs-up to butt-sex.

There won't be a "civil war." Those who disagree with orthodoxy don't show up to Mass to begin with. What makes you think they're going to show up for theological battles?

Now, let us join together and sing Andrew's favorite hymn, "Our God is a Persuadable God."

Hiding From Men In Wigs

Reading this just makes me more certain than ever that if the folks at Sellafield behaved like our L3 friends in the justice system, the Libs would be demanding they be publicly executed. Plus, the whole of Cumbria would glow in the dark. The self-same people who profess to predict the temperature in 2100, claim to be staggered that rapists carry out rapes. Who'd have thunk it ? If the Left could support it's ecorantings with this level of evidence, Conservatives would be taking the Raleigh to work. Then again, whatever happened to 'corporate manslaughter' ? The Left is prepared to investigate exactly how many turns a locking nut needs, but we're not supposed to ask questions about a court system that lets maniacs out to kill.

But what of the Conservative Party ? Most decisions in politics demand a careful balancing of pros and cons - this isn't one of them. No one can construct an argument for the utility of letting perverts strike again. Stop ten people in the street and nine of them will tell you that the judicial system is out of control, but what does Howard offer ? Really offer, as in concrete policy ? I am a Conservative and I can't think of a single compelling policy the Party offers on crime. We can't avoid the issue any longer. The problem is not a matter of nuance, interpretation or tactics, the problem is that we have a system filled with people who think the prospect of a dangerous criminal striking again takes second place to 'sending the right message', or whatever the insane Liberal phrase d'jour actually is. Public safety takes second place to Gramscian posturing. Until the Conservative Party is prepared to acknowledge that central fact, it cannot be trusted to make Britain safer.

Place Your Bets!

So, in blatant defiance of the demands of the transgendered zoophile community, the Church has decided that the next Pope will be a Catholic. I say Polly Pot for the first Lunar Chiroptera to file an article claiming that no one cares, it's just some old, white, guys and, what's more, those grapes are sour anyway.

Screw Culture

Speaking as someone who's long believed that the average footy hooligan has a better developed moral sense than the typical Metropolitan intellectual, I always knew this was going to happen. Liberals might struggle to win actual debates, but let them write the script, design the stage set and direct the production, and they're unstoppable. Lefty theatre is to political debate what masturbation is to sex.

Then again, what is culture these days except a vast rescue hypothesis for Liberals ? Actual humans might laugh at Liberals, but that's only 'cause they're not cultured, see ? The Yin to the Yang of Liberals declaring themselves to be higher beings is that they seek to justify their claim by self-consiously reactionary posturing. Of course, a real rebel on the London scene would be adopting a pro-Israeli position, but that's what the ordinaries would do. Seeing the redeeming features of a bunch of genocidal loons, now that's takes real insight - and that's the other objection to the whole culture thing. Not only does it allow Liberals to indulge their thuggish elitism, but it also offers them an unjustified sense of achievement merely for adopting the positions of amoral degenerates.

Dhimmis D'Jour: Special Edukaysion Edition

When feminism meets Dhimmitude, the results are always horrible, as perfectly exemplified here with the Beeb's report on UN hand wringing over female education. We have this:

Conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo have done incalculable damage to children's education.

A-huh, so conflict damages educational opportunities. Not sure why this would necessarily be gender-specific, but anyway:

Then, there's this:

In eastern and central Europe, there is cause for concern too.

The introduction of fees for tuition, schoolbooks and uniforms has led to rising drop-out rates - and girls drop out sooner than boys.

Ok, we'll let that jibe at private education pass, and take it as read that fees are bad for education. Still, not seeing a gender angle here.

But what's with this ?

Belarus and Tajikistan will not achieve gender equality, neither will Turkey.

Or this ?

However, it adds that many countries in South Asia, Africa and the Middle East cannot meet the target this year.

Or even this ?

In South Asia, Unicef says, progress has been made, but not enough.
Across the region, 42 million children do not go to school.
Afghanistan and Pakistan have the widest gender gaps.
For Pakistan to have the same number of girls as boys in school by 2015, it would have to increase girls' school attendance by more than 3% each year.

So, run this by me again: Unicef knows that education in central Africa is screwed because of war, while in Europe privatisation is the baddie, even though they can't necessarily prove why it would disproportionatly affect girls. Meanwhile, in the Middle East and South Asia there really is a gender gap, but they can't offer a single explanation as to why that might be. Hmmmmmmm….

I blame Haliburton myself.

That's Just What I Would Have Said....

One of the joys of the Net is finding something that says exactly what you would have said, if you didn't have brains like linguini. Sort of like Tommy G's post here about the pond scum at the CRE: why exactly does anyone listen to these people ?

Weakness Not Strength

There's been plenty of comment about this insanity in the blogosphere. Personally, it cheered me up no end. It's a perfect example of the L3/human chasm. The Left has had near-monopoly control of the institutions for so long that they've lost the ability to construct any argument more complex than Bush=Hitler. Or, to return to the topic at hand, what does it actually mean to call Top Gear 'outdated'. In fact, that charge is the perfect exemplar of how Liberals argue. To a Leftist, merely calling something outdated is a damning phrase, but those of us who don't believe the world was a living Hell prior to 1963 want a bit more. After all, Shakespeare's play are really old, while Harold Pinter's are new, and that kind of raps it up for the benefits of modernity.

The whole of Transport 2000's charge sheet is like that. A collection of shrill, barely coherent, Liberal talking points - and I loved it. Listening to Liberals thrash about trying to construct an argument is always fun, but there was a deeper point here: the complete failure of the Left to sell their garbage to the Great British Public. The Left can only win by lying or by coercion. Or, to put it another way, even a bloke who knows more about pistons than politics can see through their dipstick positions.

As it happens, it looks like the Smirking Menace will be returned with a hundred seat majority on May 5, which is certainly bad news - but I'm still not ready to listen to any talk about the ultimate triumph of Liberalism. Say what you like about Lady Thatcher, but at least she didn't spend the Eighties talking about how much she valued the input of the TUC. OTOH when Blair talks about crime he sounds like Judge Dredd. Ditto, the EU, immigration, tax…..All this after eight years of PC terror.

No doubt about it - the Country can barely survive another five years of Labour, yet there is reason for hope. The whole basis of Nu Lab's Gramscian project is that control of the institutions will allow them to reshape the minds of the public. Well, we've had eight years and the public is still resolutely unconvinced that paedophiles are just misunderstood.

The Peasants Are Revolting

Power up the vacuum chamber and prepare the nano-violin - I wish to play a sad song for all those social workers in blue having to face….no, no, it's too much...having to face public criticism.

Actually, that isn't quite how they put it:

POLICE have received hate mail over jailed schoolteacher Linda Walker.

Officers have been sent dozens of emails and letters, as well as taking phone calls from all over the country, from people angered over how police handled the investigation.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure sending hate mail is an offence. If only they had some contacts in the law enforcement community….But wait: they've magnanimously refused to take action over this alleged hate mail which, amazingly enough, means they don't have to provide any actual evidence of actual hate, rather than merely robust public criticism. Who'd have thunk it ?

Actually, the Filth are just taking their cue from their masters. If Cherie Blair was discovered to eat babies for breakfast, the Left would be out there complaining about sexist coverage. At least I hope it's that: I'd hate to think that we reached such heights of feeding-Rover-at-the-table that our living-dead public servants now genuinely believe that any public criticism whatsoever constitutes an offence.

It's OK though - apparently there's a simple explanation:

Chief Supt Holt said: "There have been a lot of letters, written on the basis of misinformation and inaccuracy.

"What I have tried to do is correct those inaccuracies.

You see, we don't 'ave the knowin' of stuff like what our hardworking, intelligent, public sector class do. We've allowed ourselves to be seduced by the tabloids, the Conservative Party, the freemasons and the International Zionist Conspiracy. Or to put it another way, it turns out we're STOOPID.

Again.

Thing is this slimy, syphilitic, socialist errand boy appears to be well-equipped to talk about misinformation. Take this comment:

Mr Holt pointed out a jury had found Walker guilty and a judge had jailed her - the police had played no part in either decision.

Funnily enough, the Nuremberg defence doesn't apply in the era of 'my resources fell down the stairs, guv' policing. It was the Police who decided to abandon Linda Walker to the thugs, yet somehow found a whole bunch of resources going spare when it was time to target her, just like it was the Police who decided not to caution her and instead call in CPS.

Then again, try this:

Is it okay to go out armed and confront the first people you come across, even if you have no proof they were responsible for discarding litter in your garden?

"While I accept she was frustrated, her actions were not proportionate. It could have been anybody's children out on the street."

Children ????? Since when has 18 years old been considered childhood ? Oh right, yeah - since when it was useful to blood-sucking Liberal parasites trying to play the victim card. Contrary to what this conniving piece of socialist slime is trying to claim, the two state-appointed victims were emphatically not 'anybody'. They were experienced criminals - if Linda Walker can choose two people, completely at random, who just happen to be serial offenders, she shouldn't be being persecuted by the Police, she should be running them.

Then there's this:

Even if people had damaged her car, it can never be a proportionate response to take a loaded firearm out onto the streets.

Well, I don't know Officer Suckweasel, let's wait until that actually happens. Right now, we're talking about a woman who took an air pistol onto the street. I mean, I know promotion is based on politics these days, but these Leftist tools could at least try and pass themselves off as real Police officers. While an air weapon is considered as if it was a firearm if used in the commission of an offence, that doesn't actually make it a firearm, anymore than putting a lead on your cat makes him a dog. The law clearly distinguishes between firearms and air weapons (and shotguns too, actually). This isn't a mere technicality either - real pistols typically have 100-200x the hitting power of an air pistol. Or to put it another way - legally, technically, morally it is a nonsense to suggest that Linda Walker was 'armed with a firearm'.

This kind of legalistic chicanery is SOP for pols, but it does kind of sink the Police's posturing as disinterested upholders of the Law. They aren't just 'doing their job', they're enthusiastically trying to shred their opponent's reputations. But don’t no one criticise them. That'd be Hate Speech, doncha'know ?

The BBC: Stupid Or Sinister ? Discuss.

Bush Creates Loyal Reserve

The US has sworn in commanders of a new military reserve which President Bush says is meant to deter terrorism.

Two hundred thousand reservists paraded before Mr Bush at the Pentagon.
The new formation, which the president wants to become a twenty million-strong force in the near future, will be directly under his command.

The move comes amid growing fears of terorism.

The parade marked the first part of a day of events marking the anniversary of a failed attempt to assassinate the President's father in 1991.

Now, does anybody on this entire planet think the BBC would report such an event so blandly ? If this really happened they'd be going ape with the Hitler analogies - rightly so, for once. This is exactly what Hitler did when he created the SS as a seperate force loyal only to him. But no, not this time. Take the headline here: 'Chavez creates new loyal reserve'. Say what ? If ever there was a sentence that called out for quotes, it's this one. Loyal to what or who exactly ? The whole article reads like something from a parallel universe where it's normal for heads of state to set up their own private army. Far be it from me to complain about a Beeb article lacking editorial comment, but this one lacks any context. No quotes from opposition leaders, no hints as to whether it's constitutional for the Venezualan President to set up his own force, no hint even that he is a communist dictator.

At least we now know what it takes to make the Beeb report a story straight - it just has to be one that's potentially revealing about a Liberal pin-up

Balanced BBC

Auntie has revealed the guest list for the This Week in the run-up to the elction and it's a lu-lu.

Guests lined up for This Week's election programmes include impressionists Rory Bremner and Alistair McGowan, historian David Starkey and comedian Rich Hall.

Leading brain researcher Susan Greenfield, novelist Fay Weldon and ex-newspaper editor Rose Boycott are also due to appear in the show.

Well, I think we can safely say Rory Bremner is on the Left. I'll give McGowan a pass, since I have no idea about his views. David Starkey is apparently a Conservative - the type who hopes Ann Widdicombe falls under a bus, like so many Conservatives. Rich Hall, meanwhile, is very definitly Grade A Moonbat.

Not only is Susan Greenfield an Oxbridge academic, in every sense of the phrase, she has spoken at Labour conferences and been a guest at Number Ten several times. Fay Weldon is a pin-up girl of whiny female victimhood. Rosie Boycott used to edit The Independent - need I say more ?

Or to put it another way, out of seven guests mentioned, six are Liberal to some extent or other, while not one can be described as a full-on Conservative. Add in the fact that the regular guests are Lefty Labour MP Diane Abbot and Lefty Conservative MP Michael Portillo and the question has to be raised: wouldn't it save a lot of money if the Beeb just spent thirty minutes showing the testcard with the phrase 'Up Yours Tories' on it ?

Liberals Seek Evil Genius Behind Christianity

To steal from Ann Coulter yet again, at least when Liberals write about heroin addicts or gay bathhouses they know what they're talking about, but religion ? Doesn't ring a bell, dude.

All of which brings me onto this. NS rightly reports on the train wreck knowledge of economics on display here, but the deeper question is this: what's this garbage doing in a religion textbook anyway ? Never mind the L3 ranting about creeping theocracy, it's religion that can't get away from politics. 'Jesus, loaves, fishes, lazarus, whatever...right, now let's tak about Chimpy McHitler killing Iraqi babies'. BLUUUURGH!

It's the perfect sign of Liberalism's complete inability to comprehend religion that they really think the basis of Christianity is support for higher taxes. In a perfect example of the exception proving the rule, the only religion that gets any respect from the Left is the one that really does have a full load of ideological baggage. Rules on which hand to eat with the Left understands, but that whole thing about 'the body of Christ' - forget it. Hence the L3 confusion over JP II. They couldn't handle a man who espoused some positions that were judged left-wing and some that were right-wing. Where did he get his ideas from ?

Quote D'Jour

John Hawkins on modern art:

Usually, when someone is asked to explain this sort of garbage, they throw on their art poseur hat and start sounding like they learned how to converse with other human beings by watching "The Matrix Revolutions."

Auntie Turning Tricks

Say what you like about the BBC - they can always find new ways to appall. The Beeb has a new advertiser on BBC World: Iran. Strangely, some are unconvinced by the Islamonazis cover story that they're trying to attract tourists.

RP calls it perfectly - this is an obvious attempt to pump out Ismlamofascist propaganda and influence the Beeb's line (final confirmation that the mullahs are nuts - they think they need to bribe the BBC to get it to take an anti-western line). I believe the journalistic cliche that applies is 'I don't mind my reporters ******* the elephants, but if they do, they're not covering the circus'. I've long been convinced that the BBC's preferred mode of recruitment is to send someone to stubble around Oxford colleges asking the students if they've ever thought of a career in broadcasting. But no matter how sketchy your knowledge of journalism is, this deal should raise some ethical questions, but, no. The BBC, ever anxious to detect Tory sleaze and conflicts of interest in industry, can't see anything wrong in accepting brown envelopes from one of the world's worst regimes. Just some background to bear in mind when considering the Beeb's hand-wringing over Tesco's profits.

Liberal Complains Election Is Being Politicised

Labour has been taking a hammering in the polls over their 'Hello Osama' immigration policy, so naturally they've released a serious of proposals to reform the immigration service, close loopholes and expedite the repatriation of bogus asylum seekers.

Just kidding.

What they've actually done is what they always do: engage in some race-baiting. Need you ask who's the Left's bagman is ? Yep - Trevor Phillips, head of the completely non-political Commission for Racial Equality.

Armani Trev is worried about….. well, here he is:

Britain's party leaders have been warned against inciting racial tensions during the election campaign.
The head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, told the Times politicians needed to "reduce the temperature" on political debates.
His comments follow reports around the country of racist violence, including attacks on traveller sites.

So, like, can we have some, actual, y'know, examples ?

Apparently not:

"I can't give you survey evidence but we know what's happening in schools. We know what's happening in factories and so on," he told the newspaper.

No wonder Armani Boy is always banging on about gypsies - he appears to have based his schtick on Gypsy Rose Lee: 'I see a tall, dark stranger….he's being beaten to death by a gang of crazed skinheads, all quoting Michael Howard…. no, I can't give you his name….or location….or a date…but it's really, really serious'.

Honestly - the bloke walking up and down the street claiming 'The End Is Nigh' has more specifics than this.

He said political parties needed to realise the effect their words may be having on the general public, and "ensure debate remains rational".

"What they've all got to understand is what they intend and what they think they are saying is not necessarily what other people are hearing," he said.

See ? If you disagree with Armani Trev, you're not rational. Well, it makes a change from calling Conservatives STOOPID. After all, we don't claim to be intellectuals, but we're not STOOPID enough to fall for that second line. The Liberal:English translation runs something like 'Despite employing the services of the nation's best quote miners, we haven't been able to identify so much as single objectionable statement from the caretaker at Huddersfield Conservative Club, so I'll guess we'll have to resort to sub-tabloid innuendo and voodoo politics'.

As it happens, there have been examples of 'racist violence, intimidation and mob rule' before. Take events in Aston, for example. What does Armani Trev think of that ? In fact, we have already seen mob violence in this campaign. Where is The Trev ? Come to think of it, we need to ask Trev if this kind of violence is made more or less likely by a Lib Dem candidate claiming there's a conspiracy ' to deprive Parliament of a Muslim MP'.

Equally, how about Trev's Brother-In-Blather, David Lammy and his none-too-subtle hints at mob violence. No need for any translation there. How does Trev feel about that ?

Then again, what are we to make of this kind of thing:

Most liberal-minded folk would like to think that since they are not hostile to people of a different race, racism is a disease of the uneducated, unenlightened and socially backward — football hooligans, British National Party supporters, policemen. You could call this the Bad Guy Theory.

Surely, Trev would acknowledge that this kind of mindless abuse of law enforcement officials can also be seen as inciting violence. Perhaps we need to silence that author too, mmmmm ?

All The **** That's Fit To Print

More insight into the news values that dominate our elephantine state broadcaster. Sectarianism in Scottish football is apparently news to the Beeb, but a mob attack on a Jewish memorial service in which elderly veterans are struck by missiles ? Puuulease! Dogs bites man, apparently.

It's not even as if they don't know where Bethnal Green is. They manage a distinctly tongue-in-bum report from a debate between Oona King and the Lion of Halabja[Sample exert: The slightly intimidating mood was not helped by the tieless Mr Galloway standing in the doorway furiously chewing gum, looking for all the world as if he was about to go 12 rounds with Lennox Lewis. Miss King swept past him without making eye contact, and settled into her seat, attempting to appear serene and composed.] Yet, a near-riot by a bunch of ROPers isn't news. Anyone think that if the attack was by BNP supporters we wouldn't be hearing about it 24-7 ?

For that matter, given that Conservative critics of immigration are apparently responsible for every racist attack in history, how should we judge the Lib Dem candidates comments that 'the Labour and Respect candidates of conspiring to deprive Parliament of a Muslim MP'. Pretty inflammatory stuff, muh ?

But no. An anit-Semitic mob disrupts a memorial service and the Beeb doesn't want to know. But don't call them Dhimmis.

Bored Already

Who the Hell is it who says to themselves 'I've never voted for the Treason Party before, but now I've seen Chatshow Charlie visit a kitten hospital in Barnsley, I just have to vote Lib Dem' ?

See, that's my problem with elections right there. Sure, most of the population isn't really sure who Michael Howard is, but someone please tell me that he's not going to pick up votes from pretending to drink a pint in the Rover's Return. Have we really sunk that low ?

Anyway, all of this is by way of praising these guys. Yes, as the results make clear, the place should be flattened, prefrably with management still inside it, but that's no reason why the worker bees should have to take time out to make nicee withe a bunch of flatuant baboons wearing rosettes. Why don't more people do this ?

Anyway, who cares ? It's not like we can't guess what's going to happen.

Oliver Twist Vs Del Boy

Interesting post from PC DC, but look at the dogfight in the comments: blasphemy for the modern Left is people people slagging Sue, Grabbit and Runne. They say there are three types of people in the world: them that make it happen, them that watch it happen and them that wonder what the Hell happened. I'm in Group C as far as all this goes. When exactly did the People's Party turf out the horny handed sons of toil in favour of BMW driving legal pondscum ? Whatever, but the folks like Frank Field and Peter Kilfoyle are fighting a losing battle: it's Cherie's party now.

So, you can understand that I was none too shocked to read about this. If Joe Public has started to despise the modern Left, it may well be because he understands that the feeling is mutual. Zell Miller's verdict on the Democrats now seems strangely appropriate to Nu Lab:

Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said 'I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill clad, ill nourished.' Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, 'I see one third of a nation and it can go to hell.'

The Pub Philosopher gives an example of this attitude and how it affects The Issue That Dare Not Speak Its Name. My only complaint is that he's way too nice to Ben and Chloe - they're not simply ignorant of the problems of the working class, they positively revel in their immunity from them. It's not just immigration: there's crime, education, health care and a whole raft of other areas of public policy where Liberals proudly proclaim their support for insane polices while flaunting their ability to exempt themselves from the consequences. Just like millionaire celeb who takes time out to inform us that he could easily pay more taxes [message: look how rich I am!], Liberals who propose, say, a complete ban on school expulsions are really just boasting that their kids go to such nice schools that there's no one there to expel anyway. Und so weiter...

Consider the differing ways two social problems are treated by the Left. We often hear about mobs being stirred up by mobile phone masts, or protestors demonstrating against paedophiles in their town. Oops, no - it’s the other way round. Demonstrate against Vodaphone sticking a mast up next door and you're an activist, demonstrate against a convicted child killer moving next door and you're a crazed vigilante. Somebody remind me again: which threat has claimed hundreds of lives, and which is backed up solely by a handful of nutballs tormenting rats.

This is not just an arid matter of terminology. Phone companies need planning permission before they can put a mast up, with all that that implies in terms of transparency. Meanwhile, the State will bend over backwards to prevent you finding out that the bloke next door has eighty convictions for child abuse. Hey - whatever you thought about the News of the World's name & shame campaign, they at least had some kind of point, while the Liberal media response was to avoid the issue entirely in favour of branding the protestors as chavs. This is how much Liberalism is dependent on sneering - they'll even line up with perverts if it means they can unload on Joe Sixpack.

We hear a lot about what Lady T did to the working class - and, for sure, no one's claiming that mass unemployment is a good thing, but what of the flip side of that ? Not for nothing did David Jason's character have the catch-phrase 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'. That expressed a great truth about Thatcherism, it introduced working people to a whole new world of possibilities. Why shouldn't a working man own his own house, own shares, go on foreign holidays ? Meanwhile, the Left's response was to call them flashy and materialistic.

Fast-forward to the reign of Princess Tony. Don't listen to Conservative critics, listen to what the Left themselves say their achievment is: they've raised x billion people out of poverty. That's it, that's what they offer: handouts and dependency. That would be bad enough on its own, but add in the rest of their program, confiscatory taxes, the return of catchment areas, stripping of the right of self-defence… If you wanted to devise a program to bring social mobility to a halt, this is what you would do. Churchill claimed that Joseph Chamberlain loved the working man, he loved to see him work. Nu Labour have gone one better: they love to see him not work, just stay fat, ignorant and most of all dependant on the bountiful nature of our Liberal elite.

Humbug'N'The Hood

Normally, a clash between a prominent race hustler and the Met would strike me as the political equivalent of France Vs Argentina: can't they both lose ? But get this: the race hustler in question, future PM and incoherent idiot David Lammy, is whining about the Police not being tough enough in Tottenham.

Yep - no mistake. DJ Chutzpah is in da house!.

To be fair, plenty of us on the Right has protested before about the Filth's habit of racing to a dead halt every time they're called to an incident involving GUUUUUUUUUUNS. Then again, Lammykins never had any trouble with that policy before now. Must have been something about the previous victims of this policy that didn't engage his sympathy.

As it happens, there was something else going on here. Here's the Met's Chief Supt Stephen Bloomfield trying desperately to avoid the elephant in the room:

He said it was irrelevant that the incident happened at Broadwater Farm, where Pc Keith Blakelock was killed in a riot in 1985. The issue was rather how a distressed crowd reacted.
"There were 250 people who were frightened and confused. In those circumstances people don't always respond as they do normally," he said.

Or to translate from Liberal to English, the Filth were worried about being attacked by a mob (and then, inevitably, being accused of provoking the scumbags). Personally, if we must have ethnic greivance miners like Lammy still waving the bloody shirt of Stephen Lawrence, I don't see why we're supposed to forget that it was residents of Broadwater Farm who decapitated a police officer. Neither should we forget how Bernie Grant's celebration of that fact made him a hero to the locals and propelled him into Parliament. Grant, Lammy and the rest of the race-hustling degenerates have built their careers on a toxic mix of racial paranoia, victimhood and outright thuggery, all of which are perfectly exemplified in this case. After all, we're talking about an incident in which a black shot a black in a black area, but Lammy claims it's all the fault of the honkeys, and then… well, let's hear him speak for himself:

"The community perceive that they were not being policed. I am told police were making a risk assessment, but this has had enormous implications for community relations. If this young man had died, this would be a much more serious situation."

So, if the Filth don't stop worrying about the propensity of 'the community' to go on the rampage, then 'the community' will go on the rampage. But it'll still be the white man's fault.

Why Can't Howard Say Something Like This ?

Our disagreement with activist judges isn't based only on the fact that they're liberals and we're conservatives. More important, it's based on the fact that our Constitution didn't establish the [High] Court as a super-legislature, appointed for life, charged with nullifying popular opinion when it conflicts with more "sophisticated" sentiment. One can imagine a government so structured, but it isn't ours, and it wouldn't be a democracy. Those who try to turn the judiciary into a legislature--but an unaccountable one, that never has to stand for re-election--can hardly complain when electoral passions begin to swirl around judicial appointments.

Who Speaks For The Children ?

Well, now this is just shocking! Isn't this just symptomatic of a developing Continental-style 'fraud culture' ? Should the media take some responsibility for continuously glamourising acts of banking ? And what of the fact you can walk in off the street into a so-called 'stationers' and walk out two minutes later with an accounts book ? You can even buy a full set of pens and a ruler with it and the only question asked will be how you want to pay.

The bottom line that no one yet has the courage to ask is this: who really needs a bunch of hoplophobic lunatics ? Surely if these people are so obsessed with seizing guns they should join the Police ? There's simply no good reason why a civilian needs access to high-grade hoplophobic lunacy - they should leave it to the professionals at the Home Office.

UPDATE:

Down in the comments 'Anon' points out that the MAG website shows that it is supported by So Solid Crew.

Apparently, someone told them that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, and they said 'sounds good to us'.

£3 Billion A Year For This ?

I wish I could write like this guy, but I can't so I'll just have to content myself by linking to his report on the Beeb's discovery of a whole new kind of bigotry: Felonophobia. Not for the first time, the BBC have been caught sitting on the evidence. Back in the day, the Beeb just loved to point out the contrast between the latest eruption of 'Tory sleaze' and John Major's 'Back to basics' policy, yet now the Beeb can't see any irony in lectures about morality from a convicted killer ?

This isn't a minor point - you lie down with dogs, you get fleas, and we are entitled to draw conclusions from the fact that this campaign has at its centre a known killer. We are entitled to consider what it exposes about the real attitudes to crime of the campaigners that they have no problem working with such an individual. And yes, we are entitled to consider what it means about the Beeb's claims of impartiality when, yet again, we have to go to a guy named after a dog to get the full story.

Trouble In The Moonbat Enclosure

I'm with St Ann - at least the Soviets were nice enough to be white, meaning that you could call these scumbags scumbags without having to put up with the idiot yapping of the Left claiming you were clearly prejudiced against Slavs.

Now, of course, everything's changed - the USSR let the Left down but they've managed to find an even-worse ideology to moon over and this time they get to call their critics racists. Which is lucky since there's not a lot you can actually say in favour of Islam.

Still, all is not well in Lefty Neverland. Laban Tall points out that the L3 are descending into another bout of typically absurd internecine warfare, this time over the whole question of Islamophobia. The screaming moonbat Left takes issue with the merely screeching moonbat Left and their failure to properly apply socialists principles. Actually, now I think about it, that describes just about every Lefty tiff ever. Normally, I'd say lock the doors and let them have at it, but - for once - the debate does actually raise some valid questions.

The screamers point out - correctly - that the screechers's tolerance of Islam is predicated on the existence of an elusive, yet huge, body of moderate Muslims who support gay rights, women's rights….. in fact, the whole screecher agenda. Or to put it another way, screecher's are so open-minded they'll even accept people just like them.

In contrast, the screamer's are admirably clear-sighted about Islam. They have no illusions about the compatibility of Islam with, say, democracy or the secular state. The only problem is that by acknowledging these facts, they completely undercut their own point. If Islam truly is incompatible with, say, women's rights, then there is nothing irrational or prejudiced in a feminist opposing it. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is the screamers whose motives need to be questioned.

Some would say that the screamer's position is merely the end product of making non-judgementalism your highest aim. Yet, when it comes to the US, Israel or Western Civilisation in general, the screamers have not the slightest qualms about condemning them. Indeed, the only coherent theme in the screamer rhetoric is hatred of the West. Movements such as feminism or gay rights certainly served a useful Gramscian purpose for the screamers, but they don't need them anymore - they have a new hope now and, doubtless with some relief, the screamers can leave Peter Tatchell and Co on the kerb.

Still, for all that, I prefer the screamer position - it's just more honest. These folks hate our civilisation and barely bother to conceal it. The sceechers on the other hand ? What is the search for 'moderate Islam' if not a desperate attempt to avoid the horrible truth obvious to anyone who spends even a minute comparing Sha'ria to secular democracy: our civilisation is better

Paging Dr Freud

The Guardians of Moral Seriousness at the Indie are deeply concerned, as Kofi would no doubt say, about people stirring up hysteria over paedophillia. As Laban points out, there's more than a hint of projection here. The Indie has a fine track record of waving the bloody shirt when it can advance the left wing agenda, and in particular the interest of the anti-family fanatics at the NSPCC. At least the knuckledraggers are worried about actual crimes - the defining feature about the Indie's moment of glory was the way techniques such as trawling were used to manufacture crimes out of thin air.

Still, we have one interesting revelation:

Rising hostility toward minority groups, clamour for tough sentences against offenders and a sinister desire for retribution are being driven by an increasingly prevalent right-wing agenda.

Yes, you've got us: the VRWC is involved in a dark conspiracy to target perverts.

It says a lot about the kool aid-sodden world of the Indie that it doesn't even occur to them that's they've given the game away here. Here it is straight from the horses' mouth: protecting kids from predators is part of the right-wing agenda while the Left thinks paedophilies are a persecuted minority, much like blacks (but Tories are racists!).

Hey - how come Libs get all tetchy when I say that ?

Making It

How do you spot a top-flight blog ? I like to think its when the regulars make the comments as unmissable as the posts. Take this post - Larry is great, but don't miss this comment as an explanation of the wierd Liberal obsession with killing Terri Schiavo:

Of coarse the Dems want Teri to be dead. That will qualify her to vote for them in 08.

Outrage D'Jour

The Briffameister points out this latest atrocity. I think we all knew that was going to happen, now it's just a matter of a race to the bottom. Doubtless, the BBC will be all over this.....

Liberals Gone Feral!

It's hardly an original observation to say that the problem with the counter-culture was that it was just that: an essentially reactionary movement, certain about what it despised, yet lacking any worldview of it's own. I'd only add that I'm sure that Liberalism's elite (Cherie and her ilk) do have a certain vision in mind, it's just that they realise if they explained it in public they'd get lynched. Nevertheless, the common or garden Liberal is a lot more certain about what he hates than what he likes.

I wasn't going to blog about the Terri Schiavo case, not only because there are about 300 million people better qualified, but also because it's one of those issues that's purely moral. There's no political aspect to it, it's more metaphysical than ideological. Right ?

Hey - anyone know if there's a treatment for chronic naivety ? In the comments to this post at Biased BBC Susan points to this thread at DHYS. I haven't seen the Left this buzzed about a potential death since Reagan got shot. At least this means that if we can just get Ian Huntley into a coma then the Left will let us nail him.

But no. The Left isn't really talking about euthanasia, they're talking about sticking it to Adolf McChimpler and his hordes of crazed Christian Fundies. That's the true measure of the hollowness at the centre of modern Liberalism. They're cheering on a killing just for the chance to flick two fingers at the religious right.

Let's be clear about this. The Christians oppose euthanasia, just like they've always done. It's the Left that's backflipped for political advantage. If a Right-To-Life campaigner had suggested a hypothetical case along these lines, the Left would've gone bananas. Never mind Right-To-Lifers, this case doesn't even rise to the level most pro-euthanasia campaigners argue for:

The Patient Has To Have Expressed The Desire To Die: That means living wills, not single, off-the-cuff comments recalled years after.

The Patient's Surrogate Has To Consent: That's a patient surrogate as in a family member, not some guy who wandered off years ago but never got round to doing the paperwork.

The Patient's Surrogate Has To Be Independent: In other words, not ready to score a huge wodge once the patient shuffles off this mortal coil.

We Should Be Sure Of The Diagnosis: And if there are conflicting ones then....

In Case Of Dispute, Default To Safe: If even Bin Laden is presumed innocent it's a bit much for someone to get whacked based on balance of probabilities.

It's possible to be pro-euthanasia and still oppose this case. In fact, I would argue that, whatever eventually happens, this case could become a strategic disaster for euthanasia campaigners. Not only has the Left's simlar strategy of casting Christians as illiterate redneck morons not been entirely successful electorally, but pro-euthanasia campaigners can't have their cake and eat it. It's hard to argue that there is a morally-serious case for euthanasia while giving house room to people seemingly prepared to kill someone merely to spite the Jesus freaks.

So, I Guess 'The Secret Jihadi' Is Off Then ?

No doubt the Beeb would dismiss this purely as the luck of the draw, just a completely amazing coincidence. OK, so what's with this ?

Let's not equivocate here. If you were relying on the BBC's coverage you would have got a completely warped perspective on the true nature of the demonstrators. Yes - that is the BBC, the 'uniquely funded', £3 billion a year Beeb. The BBC that almost gave itself repetitive strain injury patting itself on the back over 'The Secret Policeman'. The BBC that can't hardly run a story on Michael Howard without claiming that 'some are suggesting' that Mikey is pandering to extremists. Yet when there are real extremists, real advocates of violence, parading virtually past its front window, the Beeb decides what we really need is clichés: the wacky eccentric pensioner and the antiwar ex-soldiers (all two of them).

This isn't just bias. Forget the politics - this is just bad journalism. The alleged journalists could have sat in the staff canteen and simply changed a few words on the press release. They're not slanting their reports, they've actually stopped doing any reporting. Just where does that £3 billion go ?

Scaring The Horses

There's a story about the British Army in World War II. Apparently, they were a bit pressed for artillery so they reconditioned some Boer War pieces. Fortunately, they still had the original operations manuals, but no one could work out why they were supposed to detail a gunner to stand at the side of the gun when it fired. It was only when they located one of the now ancient authors that they found out that the soldier was there to steady the horses.

I was reminded of this story when I heard about the latest round of Bush appointments. The genius of President Bush is that he can see what works in foreign policy and what is merely steadying long-gone horses. Take the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to the World Bank. The Usual Suspects have been suitably enraged at Chimpy Von Halliburton's latest snub to the international communidee, but is the World Bank really such a great advert for the tranzi worldview ? As the Rottweiler Puppy points out, during its six decade existence, the World Bank has been about as much use as guy stroking a non-existent horse.

If actual alleviation of poverty is your thing, the World Bank is notso hotso. Say what you like about Wolfowitz, but he's no time-server. You'd think the Toyota Taliban would be happy about someone trying to spark some life into the World Bank.

No, just kidding. Our pondscum NGOs not only increasingly resemble the vast supranational bureaucracies, they also share the same cultural DNA. Poverty is a useful cover story, but the real objective remains what it always was: imposing the tranzi agenda. They oppose Wolfowitz not because he won't be effective, but because he might be. Either Wolfowitz helps make the World Bank an effective tool against poverty, neatly debunking everything the tranzis have ever said about poverty, or the tranzis immobilise him, thereby exposing their own agenda and proving how irredeemable the whole mess is. Whatever happens, it'll be a win for the US and a defeat for the tranzis.

But at least the L3 can keep on reassuring each other that Dubya is a moron.

The Pathology Of The Left

The Beeb's comment section is justifiably notorious which is why it's frequently referred to as Don't Have Your Say. Then again, as Honest Abe once said, the thing that kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself, and DHYS certainly provides a fabulous platform for the Left to show their true nature.

Take a look at this thread and note how many of the L3 are incapable simply of congratulating this heroic individual without injecting their own pathetic political points. It's the perfect measure of the monomania and self-obsession of the modern Left: yezhesahero BUT what about the BushChimpler and his illegal war for....

Maybe that's what the Left mean when they talk about a classless society ?

Meanwhile, the BBC proves there are some forms of bigotry which are just ducky, with the not at all loaded question 'How can gun crime be tackled ?'. Read and enjoy, and don't miss the comment that more than any other sums up the hoplophopbe's mindset:

Zero tolerance, 25 years for owning any gun, including air-guns. No licenses for any purpose whatsoever, no clubs, no fakes, no decommissioned weapons. £10,000 reward and anonymity for reporting any gun ownership. Censorship on all films and games involving guns or ammunition, including old-favourites like 'High Noon'.
Colin Harrison, London England

You see ? It's all Gary Cooper's fault.

Too Much Kool Aid

If you want a true barometer of where we are in the Culture Wars, consider this latest revelation about the horrific chimp attack in California. Here's a free clue: if you really think you can reason with an enraged wild animal, you definitly need to stop watching the BBC.

Don't Even Joke About It

Yes, it's all very funny now, but give it a week and the Beeb will be running lachrymose docos about discrimination against the imp community, Cherie will represent one in a human rights case and White Flag Walker will be giving speeches encouraging them to join the Army.

Mind you, that still leaves the main question unanswered: are they practicing True Goblinicity ?

Hell: A Tourist Guide

One of the best things about the net is that you see a lot of stuff that would never sneak through the PC sensors, or indeed censors, in mainstream publications. Stuff kind of like this - also worth checking out this thread, from whence the link was found. But for the last word on the whole horrible business there's really only one man.

Personally, I'd Rather Have Kept The Snakes

Mr FreeMarket reminds us that 93 years ago today Captain Oates went for his fateful walk.

Personally, I think that's a small price to pay for avoiding all this loveable Oirish crap. The folks at Tangled Web sum it up pretty well. Still, there's a little more to it than that.

I remember our future PM wondering why some many Brit Bloggers were pleased to tip their hats to the Yanks on July 4 when, all things considered, what was actually being celebrated was a British defeat. Actually, his argument was a little more nuanced, but it does raise an interesting point. The Declaration of Independence is kind of dull, but it does raise a number of serious charges against the Crown. The Constitution of the Unites States is one of the most sublime documents in existence. I can't imagine a country which wouldn't be improved by - at least - adopting the principles enumerated in this document - America, for example. The constitution is animated above all else by a belief in the limitlessness of human potential.

But Ireland ? Yes, they keep going on about cleansing Ireland of the British, but what else ? Irish nationalism is a philosophy almost uniquely devoid of any elevated concepts. True, there is a warped parody of The Faith which owes more to Tony Soprano than His Holiness, plus industrial quantities of victimhood, but apart from that ? Nada.

Partition in Ireland was like the sink estate seceding from the rest of town. The only problem with it was this: in the US they said 'Go west', in Ireland they say 'Go east until you get to Britain, breed like rats, hit the welfare like a battering ram and then spend it all getting blitzed and singing about killing Brits'. They're not a nation, they're an ex-wife.

Of course, now they're a roaring Celtic Tiger, which is why they need all those subsidies from the EU. Or something. Mind you, it must be hard to build an economy when the only thing you've ever invented is the car bomb.

Truly, the Irish are the Palestinians of the West. Except this: St Patrick was a Roman from Britain. Say what you like about the Palis, but even they don't have the chutzpah to build a key part of their national identity around an Israeli.

It's 1588 All Over Again

At last the L3 have woken up to the fact that there exists a large body of religious loons who wish to overturn our democratic traditions and turn this country into a theocratic madhouse. It took a while but now the Left has come out against…. Catholics ? It's an outside shot, but what with these new revelations about the dangers of Papery and the Left's recent discovery that the IRA are scum, I'm off to William Hill to see what odds they'll give me against the next Labour leader being Ian Paisley.

What it's all about, of course, is abortion. Princess Tony's contribution to the debate has been to say that he 'does not believe abortion should be an election issue, arguing it is a matter for individual conscience. ' The word 'chutzpah' is somehow inadequate to describe the Great Regulator talking about the importance of individual choice. In fact, even Blair doesn't believe in that much choice - he wants it to be legal to kill foetuses, but not to hunt them with dogs. You might think foetuses aren't human, but they're a lot closer than little red doggies.

Maybe the Catholics should claim all abortionists are 'toffs' ?

Still, if Blair eulogising about individual choice is bad enough, what of Howard claiming to have moral qualms about abortion ? 'Moral qualms' ? Probably just indigestion. Still, there's more than enough humbuggery to go round. Of all papers, it's this one that let's the cat out of the bag, revealing that evil maniac Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor made his comments at a press conference to reveal the Church's 'traditional pre-election letter'. Yep, theophobes - a whole laundry list of theocratic nonsense just ready to fisk, yet you need to dig deep even to find that the letter exists. How come no one perceives the first stirrings of theocracy in the rest of these demands ? Need you ask. If they've kept to form the letter will consist of a trainwreck collection of dhimmitude, open borders nonsense, welfare white elephants and the whole rest of the L3 agenda hidden under a half millimetre layer of scripture [and in fact the omens aren't good - the Guardian calls the letter 'scrupulously neutral '].

But don't let the hypocrisy of the Left in this particular case blind us to their more general hypocrisy. The most prominent parliamentary pro-lifer right now is Ann Widdicombe, a Kent Conservative, but before that it was David Alton, Lib Dem from Liverpool. There's no stereotype for a pro-lifer - the only common factor is that these people have for whatever reason - religious, scientific or the voices in their head - decided that abortion is murder. It is the Left that has sought to politicise abortion, rebranding a sad and nasty medical procedure into some kind of bizarre fusion of the storming of the Bastille, the Red October tractor factory and the suffragettes.

It is precisely because abortion is a moral matter that the Church is justified in speaking out - certainly more so than on matters such as the taxation of dividend income. For the same reason, it is asinine for Blair (or anyone else) to claim that abortion is simply a matter of individual conscience. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is where somebody kills someone else. For anyone except uber-Libertarians to claim that the State has no compelling interest in preventing murder is surely absurd, yet this is what the Left - the speech-code, passive smoking, five-a-day co-ordinated Left - claims.

In a stunning proof of the stopped-clock hypothesis, Michael Howard stumbled onto the key question: where in the long haul from fertilized ovum to birth does the foetus become a baby ? This is a serious question and it deserves better than the Left's crude attempts to close down the debate, as so perfectly exemplified by this comment from Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association,:

What is the benefit to women, or to the potential child, of forcing a woman to have a baby?

No wonder the Left is so keen on more sex education.

Last To The Party Again

I know it's had a lot of coverage in the Blogosphere, but just in case anyone has been on the Moon recently, here's news of the latest hole down which the Eurotrash are throwing our cash: the European Parliament has set up a unit to "detect lies, errors and other types of misleading reporting on the EU constitution in the European media". That's the European media, as opposed to the European Parliament, where lying about the EU is strongly encouraged. Anyway, for the record (and because I can't get the link to work), here're the e-mail addresses for the whiny ones:

Gérard LAPRAT glaprat@europarl.eu.int (Former Sec-Gen of the Communists in the EP)
Jowita WYPYCH jwypych@europarl.eu.int
Joëlle FISS jfiss@europarl.eu.int
Ralph PINE rpine@europarl.eu.int
Bertrand PELTIER bpeltier@europarl.eu.int
Dominique ROBERT drobert@europarl.eu.int
Danièle RECHARD drechard@europarl.eu.int
Wilhelm LEHMANN wlehmann@europarl.eu.int
Jose Luis PACHECO jpacheco@europarl.eu.int

That Was Quick

I told you the Liberal-infested social services would put the Army in the shade over Deepcut - but even I thought it would take more than 24 hours to do it. Apparently, the Left has a downer on the Green Machine, but cannibalism is just another life-style option. Here's the key point:

Bryan was sent to a secure hospital after admitting beating 20-year-old shop assistant Nisha Sheth to death with a hammer as she worked in her family's clothes shop in Chelsea, south-west London, in 1993.

But he was freed in 2001 after applying to a health review tribunal.

Like, hello ? BNFL release a smoke alarm's worth of rads into the Irish Sea and the Left is in favour of bringing back public execution, but the beardey-weirdies release a cannibal onto our streets and suddenly we're in for a rousing chorus of 'That's Life!'. Where's their corporate manslaughter now ?

History is full of tragedies which happen when a series of unrelated and unlikely happenings all come together at once. This isn't one of them. At every stage in this fiasco a common theme emerges: Liberalism.

Take, for example, the whole question of the mental health tribunal system. Let's not call the experts useless. On the contrary, in creating a mythology, a mix of Liberal posturing and Voodoo science, that proved to be of no use whatsoever in, uh, actually making predictions (pretty much the point of real science) the experts were positively harmful. If you randomly picked a guy off the number 32 bus he wouldn't have done as badly as the supposed experts. It takes a peculiar mix of bad science and bad politics to reach the point where releasing a proven killer seems like a good idea.

But that's the thing: the self-same people who get to decide if Mr S O Ciopath is cured are the ones whose careers depend on pushing the idea that all a whackjob really needs is the cerebral equivalent of an oil change and suddenly he's Joe Normal (but Conservatives are still nuts)! It's like staffing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence with homeopaths - what do you think they're going to say ? Yet, what is Liberalism if not exactly this kind of deference to unaccountable, soi dissant experts combined with contempt for Joe Public ?

Or consider the initial sentence. Here we have a bloke guilty of a senseless murder yet first the Liberals declare him insane, meaning he doesn't go to prison, then they declare him sane, meaning he's out on the streets after only eight years. Whatever the Left had to do to get a dangerous predator off the hook, they did it. This is what happens when your highest moral aim is non-judgementalism - you can't spot absolute evil even when it's looking you in the gouged-out eye.

Most characteristic of all though, is the Liberals Gold Star ability to learn from their mistakes:

The prosecution accepted not guilty pleas to murder charges because of the weight of psychiatric evidence.

Haven't we heard that somewhere before ?

Still, it's not all bad news:

He went on to kill Richard Loudwell, 59, at Broadmoor special hospita ….who had admitted the manslaughter of 89-year-old Joan Smyth at her home in Rainham, Kent, in December 2002.

Now that's rehabilitation. I recommend group therapy with Ian Huntley.


UPDATE:

In the comments Steve points to this post, which examines the Left's position on crime from an Objectivist persepective. I, myself, prefer the Gramscian (or anti-Gramscian ?) perspective, but it does raise interesting points and, again, recognises the central fact that Liberals are so bad at fighting crime in large part because they don't actually see it as crime.

Social Workers Could Really Show The Army How To Neglect Its Duty Of Care

Having slagged off the Army below, let me make amends by offering my expert advice on how to get out of their Deepcut hole: hire some social workers. After all, sexual abuse, violence and avoidable deaths are par for the course for the average social services department, yet they get away with it alright. While the Army is searching for the right candidates, here's some things they could learn from the Beardy-Weirdies right now.

Claim That Your Complete Incompetence Means You Need More Resources: no one knows why Liberals interpret utter failure as grounds for more of the same, but they surely do.

Say That It Was A Failure Of Procedures Not People: Needless to say, some pesky RWDB will insist on asking whose job it is to execute the procedures if not people, but they should be encouraged. Any suggestion of personal responsibility will repel the Left so much they'll naturally rally to your cause.

Demand A Multiagency Approach: This is Liberalese for 'blame the Filth', so naturally they'll go for it.

Claim You're Victims Of A Tabloid Conspiracy: The merest suggestion that the Sun is opposed to abuse of recruits will be enough to bring 40% of L3 to your side.

State That You Can't Discuss Individual Cases: Since every case is, by definition, an individual case this means you can float around issuing abstract bromides rather than deal with embarrassing facts.

But most of all:

Remember to claim that "lessons were learned".

Singapore, 2005

With the Deepcut reporting coming out, the top brass obviously felt the need to get a few L3 on-side. Now that's top-class dhimmitude!

The head of the UK Armed Forces made a direct appeal to the British Islamic community to encourage more Muslims to join up.

But plenty of Muslims have already joined up to fight in the War - true, they've joined the other side, but hey - let's not be narrow-minded here.

The Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Walker, promised "fulfilling careers and high-quality training" for recruits.

Yep - that's the Army alright. Training and fulfilment - kind of like going to Uni but with a slightly more restrictive dress code.

That's the good part. It gets worse - a lot worse.

Addressing leading members of the Muslim community, he paid tribute to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) for promoting tolerance and understanding of different cultures in Britain.

Generic point: how do you get to be a leading member of a [PC victim community d'jour] ? More specifically, who says that the MCB speaks for Muslims ? Did they hold an election or what ? Instinct tells me that the type of Muslim who will fight for Britain is the type of person least likely to show fealty towards the thugs'n'thools at the MCB. Incidentally, just what other cultures has the MCB promoted tolerance of ? There's supermodels less self-centred than these pondlife.

Anyway, what happened to the consitutional safeguard that soldiers don't engage in politics ? Expressing support for the MCB is hardly a dry, technical matter. Take, for example, this:

Speaking at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Regent's Park, central London, he said: "I would like to pay tribute to the MCB's invaluable work to promote better community relations and increase knowledge and understanding of the Muslim faith within British society.

"The MCB has made a real and lasting contribution to the creation of a just and tolerant society.

Say what ? True, as long as we have the MCB, we'll never run short of taqqiya, but creating a tolerant society ? Has this bloke been drinking the Kool Aid or just chopper fuel ? This is just garbage - wrong on any number of levels, and it's a disgrace that any professional soldier could say it. More than that though, it's an outrageous offence against our system of government. Other nations may welcome generals speaking up in favour of this policy or that, but not round here. That Britain's top serviceman has chosen to align himself with the L3 is a perfect example of Blairism's only true achievement - its ability to corrupt everything.

Time was when servicemen - even Hostilities Only soldiers, yanked out of Civey St and sent in harms way - would find it in themselves to resist weeks of torture by the Gestapo. Now, the mere threat of a nasty article in the Guardian is enough for them to throw the towel in.

How did things get this bad ? Here's a clue:

"I would also like to emphasise my personal commitment to creating Armed Forces which reflect more fully the religious, cultural and ethnic diversity of the society we serve.

Yes, that's exactly what it's all about. Our Armed Services are a laboratory for L3 social engineering. It's the Liberals attempts to have an Army that works as well as our education system. Why bother to take it all seriously ?

No Representation Without Taxation

Yes, there are downsides to the life of the Liberal - bad hygiene and having to associate with other Liberals being just two of them, still there is one great compensation. While the average Conservative can predict in advance 90% of what the day holds, for the Liberal every dawn is a journey into the unknown. Take recent events in Ulster - the Left has been shocked - shocked! - to find that Sinn Fein/IRA are a bunch of murdering scum.

Who was hiding that from the Left ?

Not to blow our own collective trumpet but some of us on the Right have been saying all this for years and all we got was called racists. Still, I have my suspicions. Liberals were cool with the IRA killing cops, soldiers, Protestants, Christmas shoppers and the like, but now a member of the underclass (aka socialism's core support) has been whacked, we're supposed to take their pity party seriously ?

Needless to say, these folks have been all over it. All of which leads onto me pointing out this post - the perfect riposte to those maroons who think just because a mugger really, really, wants your wallet means you should split the cash in it with him.

When Idiots Collide!

Personally, I believe the hypothesis that we're living through an era of moronic convergence.. Still,. that's not to say the new age won't come into being without a few labour pains.

Apparently, being Norwegian PM is kind of a non-job, hence she has plenty of free time to deal with the real evils of the world, such as the poor representation of women in furniture assembly instructions. Yep, ol' Kjell Magne Bondevik is teed off because there's no girlies in the assembly instructions from IKEA. Apparently, women across the world are having their lives blighted by the absence of desk-building role models leading to...well, who knows ? As if feminists ever need a reason to whine.

So that's Kjell Magne Bondevik, toast of the whiny, fat hag demographic…or at least she would be, except IKEA blame it all on a certain murder zombie cult. Apparently, Allah left very specific instructions that the female of the species was not to feature in any instructions issued by Swedish furniture stores.

So what's a L3 to do ? On the one hand, there's the opportunity to join with the femiloons in another epic decent into victimhood, on the other there's the chance to indulge in some full-on dhimmitude. Sounds like a Jewish conspiracy to me.

The Acme Of Religion

Scott passes on some good news. You know those Islamic gangsters plaguing our cities ? Well, you'll never guess what, but they aren't practising true Islam.

Hey, is it just me or do anyone else start to suspect the claims that Islam has a billion drones world-wide when every time we hear about an actual Islamoid he turns out not to be practising true Islam ? Or is practising true Islam kind of like Wile E Coyote catching the roadrunner, something that can never actually happen ?

Still, the article does include a fabulous example of that famous Islamic thought:

Toaha Qureshi, who chairs the Lambeth Muslim Forum and runs a multicultural youth project in Stockwell, south London, was aware of local gangs "camouflaging themselves in the banner of Islam" and feared they would try to infiltrate mosques to corrupt young Muslims. He said people wishing to convert to Islam should be questioned about their motivation and undergo rigorous tests. Criminals should not be tolerated.

Like, OK, so there're not Muslims then. Except the next paragraph says this:

"Since 9/11 Muslims are under tremendous pressure. Young people are disaffected and it is up to the statutory agencies and community leaders to divert them into worthwhile employment and projects," he said.

So the criminals are not Muslims but nevertheless their crimes prove that us Dhimmis aren't paying enough Danegeld to the Dar El Islam. Gosh, with great thinkers like that I can't see how they keep getting pounded into the ground by a country with about the same population and area as Greater London.

The Foxhunting Bill Of London SW1

There are a least a hundred reasons why Tessa Jowells comparison of the BBC to the NHS is insane, but the most obvious has to be this: at least Conservatives can get treated by the NHS. As far as the BBC goes, who'd be surprised to find they'd changed their motto to 'Up Yours, Conservatives!'. Wait - they've already done the next best thing.

That's the bias right there. The BBC can't even pretend that this is anything other than a calculated insult to Conservatives, together with no little triumphalism, a way to remind us that they've got away with it for another ten years (here's hoping not).

But what does it say about the BBC, or indeed the Left in general ? Fearon doesn't represent any particular philosophy, he has no insights to offer, not even Tom Paulin can claim he has any worth outside his worthlessness - his sole value is that he allows the BBC to stick it to Conservatives. That's what passes for deep thought on the Left these days - soaking the taxpayer, flicking v-signs at Conservatives and hailing their own heroism in doing so. Look at Labour's election campaign for proof of that.

This is where the Left is these days. They've been on the wrong side of every issue for the last thirty years so they've turned to cultural nihilism. They might not be right about anything but YOU SUCK!.

One Market You Can Rig

Personally, I've understood the huge downer some folks have on supermarkets, but still - if we do ever need to hobble Asda and the like, I have the perfect method: let the Department for Education run them. For proof of how far outside the normal confines of human intercourse the educrats have gone, consider the saga of the latest batch of lipstick on the pig:

Ms Kelly told the Secondary Heads Association's annual conference it was schools' duty to be "ever more responsive" to communities. …

During her speech, in Brighton, Ms Kelly, reiterated her calls for schools to give parents more feedback on their children's progress and annual governors' meetings with parents. …

The speech comes a day after the government said it wanted more "tailored" learning programmes for children of all levels, including some "one-to-one" tuition.

This sounds like the educational equivalent of mom, God and apple pie, right ?

Ahuh…not quite:

Education Secretary Ruth Kelly has been accused of "patronising" head teachers by asking them to work with parents and government to raise standards.

"Raising standards" ? Them's fighting words round here. Doubtless, the chance to let loose their inner chimpanzee helped the delegates blow off steam between debates over lack of discipline in schools.

Really, it's hard to tell which is worse - the asinine views of these people or the fact they think that they can treat the elected representatives of the people as some kind of unwanted house guests. Then again, Nu Labour hardly deserve respect. Look at their idea of a bold reform: small group tuition. Gosh, Ruth, do you think you're going a bit too far ? It's kind of devil may care, isn't it ?

You're tempted to wish the government would show some steel in dealing with these people, but we're only talking about children rather than something really important like foxes. Besides, Nu Lab might be run by scumbag lawyers (redundancy!) but there's no question who makes up the bulk of the Party.

That's the frustration of it all. The Conservatives are looking for two things above all else: a way to differentiate themselves from Nu Lab and a way to prove they really care about public services. Well, here's a public service that's a national scandal, yet Labour dare not touch it. So where's the Conservative Party ? But no, such reforms as are proposed are strictly blathersgate.

What are they worried about anyway ? Damaging their powerbase amongst the teachers ? Please! In the 2001 election the Conservatives lost half their support amongst teachers when he got run over on the way to the polling station. On the other hand, there is this. Let's allow for deadbeat dads and factor out aunts, uncles, grandparents and the like - we're still talking about 100 000 voters per year being told 'well, we know you had big hopes for Michael, but we've got union members to protect - oh yeah, keep paying the taxes'.

Hell, let's not be too cold blooded about this. We're talking 70 000 kids per year finding themselves shunted into the sidings before they've hardly started. Just to put that in context, we're talking the same number as Bomber Command suffered casualties in the whole of the Second World War, except instead of paying the price of beating Hitler, we're paying the price of offering jobs for life to deadbeats. Can we be sure that the next Einstein or the next Bill Gates isn't amongst them ? Hardly.

It occurs to me that if Asda, Tesco and the rest had an arrangement similar to that covering school admissions, the Competition Commission would be at Defcon One. But the self-same people who genuinely believe that the City, book publishing, mobile phones and washing powder markets are all secretly run by cartels, are nevertheless A-OK with the idea of fixing the market for schools so that even Hell St Comp can stay in business. Is education more or less important than the supply of beans ?

Right now, we have a government that's afraid to take on the teachers, except in the most indirect way, and a teaching profession that approaches every situation with two raised fingers. Hence, the obsession with paperwork, reflecting the fact that nothing less than being cornered like a rat and watched like a hawk will drive the educrats to obey the orders of the democratically-elected government. So screw them. Let the market have them. If Joe Motivated at St Margaret's wants to take 120% of capacity, let him (and pay him accordingly) while as for the radical dudes, well, let's see how much radical posturing these people indulge in with their jobs on the line.

The Mad & The Bad

Amongst the several hundred things the Beeb thinks you oiks shouldn't know about Little Miss Jihad there's the identity of the lawyer who successfully turned round defeat in the lower courts into victory in the High Court. Why so cagey ? Ah yes - it turns out to be our old friend Chezza B, High Priestess of the absurd human rights case.

For all propaganda about Tony Blair 'betraying' Labour - most generated by his own supporters, anxious to reassure Joe Public - Blair has in fact been remarkably ideologically consistent. True, Blair can triangulate with the best of them, but there has always been an underlying logic to his policies, albeit not one he cares to articulate in public. Fortunately, Cherie - lacking both his thespian talent and his ability to dissemble - can't help but give the game away, hence the omerta in the Liberal media regarding her true nature.

At first sight, the fact that that Cherie Booth has thrown her hand in with the headchoppers appears paradoxical, yet that is to misunderstand why Princess Tony joined the War On Terror in the first place. While policy makers in Washington saw the war as a way to drain the swamp, by remaking the sleazy thugocracies of the Middle East into functioning democracies, Blair's objective was almost completely opposite to that. To be sure, Blair opposed the rule of thugs just as much as Bush, but while the President saw the war as an exercise in transferring power to the proverbial man in the street, Blair envisaged the war as a way of transferring power to the UN. Blair, tranzi as ever, sees the Middle East as the perfect theatre for exactly the kind of supranational interventionism that worked so well in Kosovo or Bosnia.

That is sarcasm.

This is the common thread between Cherie the Dhimmi and Blair, Liberator of Basra. Both are essentially collectivists, viewing governmental power as the source rather than the product ,of social progress. Whether it’s the Human Rights Act or the Kyoto protocol, the collective will must prevail against ideas of individual or national sovereignty.

Above all else, the Blairs are Gramscians. They seek to use the power of government to remake society. Hence the obsession with strengthening the role of government - total transformation requires total power. Their alliances with Jihadis and ecoloons are a means to an end. In both cases, they are useful battering rams to be used against the pillars of our society. Cherie not only helped the Jihadis strike a blow against western civilisation, she also helped legitimise the idea that the courts can demand citizens and organisations pay fealty to Liberalism. Ditto, Kyoto is not only a way to slip socialism in via the back door, but also a way to legitimise the idea of world government.

There is one significant difference between the Blairs. Tony Blair is the more messanic of the two, there is a genuine idealism there, a belief that the world really would be a better place for having him run it (just how many things has he taken 'personal charge of' in the last eight years ?). But if Tony Blair is mad not bad, Cherie goes the other way. Tony Blair believes an opponent is just a supporter who hasn't yet had the joy of letting him into their life. Cherie Blair is more ruthless, perfectly fitting the diagnosis offered by someone who, unlike feminist icon Cherie, actually earned her place in No 10:

Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag

Cherie Blair is the true face of the modern Left, yet the Liberal media maintains a blackout on her activities. Doesn't that say something profound about modern Liberalism ?

The Little Jihadi That Could

Living up to their unofficial motto of 'all the news that's fit to', the Beeb's coverage of the Shabina Begum story has had more holes than the Open Golf Championship. In a glowing testimony to the benefits of the licence fee, you need to go to Biased BBC to get the full story on Little Miss Taliban.

When the Beeb takes time out from producing dramas about paedophile priests and serial killers who recite the 23rd Psalm while dismembering women, to broadcast glowing tributes to a religious zealot, it's usually a sign that they're up to no good.

Not that the Liberals have actual arguments, aside from reminding us approximately 6000 times that the Rosa Parks of Luton is really, really, religious - oh yeah, and accusing everyone in the world of being 'Islamophobic'.

The truth is you don't even need to mention the I-word to see how asinine the Liberal position is. Take the absurdity of citing 'equality' as a reason to specially privilege some worldviews but not others. Consider what the Liberal's sudden outbreak of respect for religion means in the context of abortion. If you think our current abortion laws are wrong because the foetus becomes human far earlier than the original Act allows, then the Left hates you, you pig. But if you think the law needs changing because His Holiness says so, then the Left will argue that your religious belief needs to be respected.

Won't they ?

But what's with this religion anyway ? Will all religious beliefs have to be respected, or will there be some kind of licensing authority, to distinguish between religions which deserve respect and stupid, little cults. I only ask because I'm thinking that if the Satanists get turned down and bring a lawsuit, their opponents could struggle to find a lawyer. Besides, what of the Jedi ? The last census proves they have thousands of adherents - so how many people do they have to decapitate to get a little respect round here ?

Then again, if defining 'religion' is hard, how about distinguishing between religious beliefs and the ordinary, everyday ones that you don't have to respect ? Liberals might want to pretend that this case is a matter of religious freedom, but there's nothing metaphysical about dress sense. No one's talking about making windows into men's souls, just regulating actual behaviour. Or to put it another way, what rules do the Left think Muslims should have to obey ?

Despite the best efforts of the BBC and its fellow travellers to cast this as some sort of victory for a plucky lass fighting for freedom of religion, the reality is anything but. Even fifty years ago the headscarf was virtually unknown amongst Muslim women. The rise of the headscarf reflects its role as a symbol of militant Islam - it is emphatically not a politically-neutral sign of religious faith, which may be why those well-known hotbeds of Islamophobia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran all banned it when it first appeared.

The point is that from the start, allegedly Islamic clothing was used as a way of distinguishing between Islamists and everyone else. Since that time, the ratchet has only gone one way, with the Jibab being merely the latest iteration of hardline Islamism - as perfectly exemplified by Shabina Begum herself and her lawyer's shamelessly undereported statement that she opposed wearing the shalwar khameez (the 'uniform' recognised by Dhimmi High) because Sikhs and Hindus also wear it. And that's the good side of it. Comparisons to the idea of allowing native Britons to attend school in KKK robes fall short on one particular point - even BNP members have never stooped to this sort of thing:

After all, in some giant housing projects surrounding Paris and other French cities, young Muslim women who dress in western clothing are deemed to be fair game, inviting—indeed, asking for—rape by gangs of Muslim youths. In such circumstances, it is impossible to know whether the adoption of Islamic dress by women in western society is ever truly voluntary, and so long as such behavior persists, the presumption must be against it being so.

Indeed. The Jibab is an ideological symbol, and a pretty foul ideology at that. To cite religious freedom as grounds for allowing these people to parade around even the most inappropriate of places - schools certainly count - in full Islamist regalia is to miss the central point that the overt wearing of such paraphernalia is designed to crush freedom, both in the specific sense of intimidating people by their physical presence, and in the more general sense that it is designed to create a legal environment where Muslims are specially privileged, for example by being able to opt out of rules they don't like, while at the same time, their critics are subjected to ever more overt legal harassment. In short, the Court's ruling marks another step on the road to dhimmitude.

Brilliant!

When I first read today's horrifying headline "SUPREME COURT BANS DEATH PENALTY FOR YOUTHS!" I nearly plotzed.

"OMIGODDESS! BUSH HAS DONE IT!" I screamed at my confused cat. "THAT FASCIST SHRUB HAS OVERTURNED ROE V. WADE!"

Like, History, Man

No one goes to Uni without meeting the Pretentious Stoners - people who think that getting high as a kite and babbling about, like, y'know, "if lobsters could sing, what would they sound like ?", is soooooo deep. If you've ever wondered what happens to them when they graduate, I can now reveal that they get jobs drawing up exam syllabuses.

The Historical Association recommends a "complete overhaul" of teaching of the subject at GCSE and A-level.
Much of the curriculum is speculative and unhistorical, its report adds.
In one exam, pupils were asked what ancient Romans would have made of a 19th-Century cartoon about the quality of London's drinking water.

Like, totally. Who hasn't wondered what would've happened if Napoleon had been able to clone himself ? Pretty much everyone actually, but now it's passing as scholarship. So at least we don't need to wonder anymore how rising exam passes can coexist with massive cluelessness.

Don't Mention The War

Read this report from the Beeb and see what's missing. That's our public service broadcaster that is, the people who can't report the theft of Ian Wright's motor without speculating that the thief may have had a racial motivation - but you have to read the Telegraph to find out why we might have had a case of Sudden Exploding Aircraft Syndrome.