Don't None Of You Nazis Point Out What We Believe (Part I)

David over at A Tangled Web kindly posted a link to this post here. Needless to say, the Libs infecting his site were their usual, calm, measured selves. As far as a common theme can be determined from in amongst all the teenage girly screaming, it is that it's unfair to tar Liberals with the same brush, and Conservatives are all Nazis.

Coherency was never the Left's thing.

We've had a Labour government since 1997 - I think by now we've got some pretty good data on how the Left deals with paedophiles. Take the question of parole-on-demand: here we have a situtaion where even the most dangerous of predators can be released early. There's no broad brush here. We're talking about an actual, specific policy which places British children in danger. This is a policy pushed through by a Left-leaning legal establishment, with a Left-wing government that, at the least, failed to oppose it. Doubtless, there will be Leftists who will insist that they personally are opposed to parole-on-demand for paedophiles, just as others will insist that they oppose the collapse in sentances for perverts or they support notification laws, but - judging just by their actions - the mainstream of the Left goes the other way. Call me unreasonable if you want, but I think we should be allowed to judge an ideology by the laws it passes when it gets its hands on the levers of power.

That's where the supposed analogy with racist Conservatives breaks down. There may indeed be Conservatives who are secretly lusting for a racially-pure Britain, but when found out they're, at the least, ostracized by the main body of Conservatives. But look how the Left reacts when a prominent Liberal is caught making pro-paedo comments, such as Johan Hari's bizzarre idea that the Left should reach out to paedophiles. Or rather look how it doesn't.

Similarly, whatever dark thoughts some Conservatives may have, they have no discernable effect on policy. There is no suggestion from the Right that, say, those guilty of racial attacks should be let off lightly - and certainly no equivalent support to the ever-shrinking sentances for paedophilia under the influence of the Left. Again, this is simply an objective fact: Leftists support lower sentances for paedophiles. Who exactly do these guys think they're kidding ? 'I totally oppose X, that's why I support slashin sentances for it'. C'mon!

But there's something deeper going on here. Where is the Conservative 'Brass Eye', featuring Rightists yukking it up over people worrying about racist attacks ? Ditto, Conservatives can talk about the savage murder of Anthony Walker without feeling the need to inject the story of a Cop fired for asking for a 'black coffee', yet any discussion on paedophilia will provoke at least one Lefty to cite the case of the persecuted paeditrician. Folks, here's a free clue - if you've been citing the same case for four years, there probably isn't really a tidal wave of hysteria sweeping the country.

Liberals might just - when backed in a corner - be able to muster a condemnation of paedophiles, but they soon lapse into claiming that the real problem is 'mob violence'. That's a clue to their real motivation. Liberalism's motivating force is elitism, its reflex response to any situation a superior sneer. Of course their natural sympathies are with perverts. Liberals pride themselves on their contempt for the morality of the unenlightened leetle peeple. They're still entranced by nihlistic Sixties drivel about smashing the system, man. Any pervert, any terrorist, any thug is welcome, just as long as they can be conscripted into the Left's war on Western Civilisation. That these people will even flirt with those who prey on small children is the true barometer of the moral vacuum that exists at the core of modern Leftism.

It's Like Christmas In December

Who have thunk it ? Turn's out that one of the yoofs targeted for no reason whatsoever by crazed right-wing vigilante Linda Walker has just been convicted for....carrying out a campaign of harassment against a householder.

At this point I'll simply repeat what I said at the time: 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.

Wog Judges Begin At Calais

At least we know now how to shut the femiloons up – an epidemic of gang rapes and their watchword isn't so much 'zero tolerance', more 'zero coverage'. Life is full of difficult moral choices – this isn't one of them. But no – this is one of the great moments in multiculturalism, when our PC PCs feel obliged to act as though these people are anything more than total vermin. After all, who are we to say that gang rape is necessarily a bad thing ?

Thing is though, this is purely a parochial phenomenom. While the L3 recoil from judgementalism over the vexed question of packs of degenrate predators in the Midlands, when it comes to strangers in a strange land, the Left starts acting like a district commissionar in Victorian times. Look at the Left's rhectoric when it comes to deporting terrorists. Suddenly, the Left can't criticise the wogs enough. Apparently, Liberals are shocked that there are lands out there which don't follow European ideas about human rights for criminals. Some may say that this is because they are different countries, but the Left's not having it. Of course, the Left is perfectly happy to have foreigners making their own laws – just not ones the Left disagrees with.

It's not as if we're necessarily talking about outrageous behaviour here. The Left sees torture everywhere. Christine Aguilera ? Torture! Mishandled Koran ? Torture! Milk too warm on the cornflakes ? Torture ? Probably! Liberals draw up an insanely wide defintiion of 'inhumane treatment' then use it to prove we can't export scum anywhere. Then they claim we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because, hey, Saddam wasn't all that bad.

Consider the essential humbuggery of it all. We have, say, an Egyptian citizen who's wanted by the Egyptian government for the murder of Egyptian citizens in Egypt, but we can't deport him to Cairo because we don't think Egyptians should have the right to treat terrorists in ways we disagree with. On the other hand, Liberals believe our foreign policy should be dictated by a body where Egypt has the same number of votes as Britain. So which country is it where the pyramids sit ? Egypt, the brutal hellhole, or Egypt, the member in good standing of the UN ?

The only common thread between all the Left's positions is that they invariably choose the one that does most damage to British interests. Moral positions are picked up and discarded as and when required, but the theme remins the same. If the Left wishes to label the Right as being nasty to bombers, they should certainly be encouraged. I have the strangest feeling that the Great British Public won't judge us too harshley for being rough with terrorists.

Liberals - 'Government Without Clue'

It's a good rule of thumb that when Liberals come up with fab, new, hi-tech replacements for systems that work anyway, it's usually means that they want to make things worse not better. So you can understand my lack of shock about this news. People have started to notice that sentances for paedophiles have been going down like BA's share price, so the Left announces that they're going to use technology to create a 'prison without walls'. Ah yes. What exactly's wrong about prisons with walls ?

That's the thing though. Liberals don't think predators should be in jail in the first place, but even they have the sense to know not to admit it in public. They conjuror up insane plans to track paedophiles in the hope that no one will ask what they're doing on the street in the first place. It's deja vu all over again. They did exacty the same with the rehabilitation industry, gleefully accepting each and every report of success, abscent even the most basic considerations of independent review and the like. Until the Left succeeds in its mission to legalise child abuse, we'll be bombarded with ace new ideas for dealing with nonces that all happen to be the complete opposite of what any rational person would suggest.

Politician Comes Out Of The Closet

This is brilliant:

Mayor of Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman told a group of fourth graders on Monday that if he was marooned on a desert island the one thing he would want to have with him is a bottle of gin.
And when a student quizzed Goodman about his hobbies he replied that “drinking” was one of them, said Mackey Elementary School Principal Kamala Washington, who was present for the mayor’s visit.
Goodman was unapologetic for his comments that came during his visit to the elementary school in North Las Vegas.
“I’m the George Washington of mayors. I can’t tell a lie. If they didn’t want the answer the kid shouldn’t have asked the question,” Goodman said. “It’s me, what can I do?”
When critized for telling the truth, Goodman later testily told a City Hall press conference that he was “proud” he told the truth.
“I will not lie when I give an answer. I’m not going to say I’m going to bring a teddy bear to the island, or I’m going to bring the Bible to the island,” the mayor said. “I’m not going to lie to anyone because that’s not Oscar Goodman. But sometimes you can’t tell the truth because of the people with whom you are speaking.”
Asked if he thought he had a drinking problem, Goodman said: “Absolutely not. No. I love to drink.”

Fantastic! Just look at history. Look who makes things happen. Think of all the great leaders, artists and thinkers who've been pinch-mouthed teetotalers. Think of any of them who've been lemonade weenies. It may just be that the story of human civilisation is the story of booze.

So why are we so defensive ?

The drunk of today is the inheritor of a glorious tradition stretching back to the dawn of time. It's the weasel-faced creeps and weirdos who stay sober that should be hanging their heads in shame. If human civilisation is the story of the quest for hooch, what does that make them ? Not just parasites, but ungrateful whiny little rats, enjoying the benefits of modern life while disparaging the many noble soaks throughout the ages whose drinking has made it all possible.

I'd say more, but have you seen the time ?

Debbie Does Baghdad

Paul at Powerline makes an important point on the reporting of the war. I'd go further: there's only two stories the media carries about the war:

• The 'Aliens' Story: Barely-trained US child soldiers being systematically slaughtered by deadly, unseen jihadi ninjas
• The 'Platoon' Story: Heavily armed uSS troops descending on innocent villages and slaughtering the defenceless inhabitants

I see a certain contradiction here. I mean, surely every now and again, while US Forces are raining down fire on wedding parties, kitten hospitals or bus loads of pregnant women, a round must drop short and kill a jihadi, but no: ask about Allied casaulties and the media can talk all day, but dead baddies ? Naaah, can't help you mate, but we do have a special offer on 'grieving parents'...

This is what the media panjandrums mean when they talk about their vital role in providing nuance and context - unlike those horrid bloggers! - endless reports of Allied soldiers either being killed or bombing baby elephants for no reason whatsoever. Porno movies have more backstory than the average report from Iraq.

Disco Vicar

Oh crivens! The Beeb's pretending to 'get' blogs again. Even by their standards though, the latest attempt is a little weird. There's some headmisstressy drivelling about taste and decorum, then the article lurches into covering Chris Dillow's work over at Stumbling and Mumbling. Now, Chris's stuff is fabulous but it's not what you'd call 'mass market'. Hey - that's not a criticism. One of the best things about the blogosphere is that it allows genuine experts like Chris to write about their area without dumbing down or the like. It's simply a very smart guy writing for other very smart guys - and yes, I don't understand a word of it.

Next up, we have Depleted Uranium explaining how Bayesian Inference can shed light on how the Police deal with suspected suicide bombers. Finally, we have some discussion about the literary and political significance of an obscure 19th Century bombing incident.

Now, this is all good stuff, but do you note that it all clusters towards a certain end of the spectrum ? How can one put this ? This isn't exactly what they talk about down the Dog'n'Duck.

As ever, it turns out the BBC have an agenda. Here's how the article ends:

The newspapers have got rhetoric and leader columns covered. What it would be great to see from blogs is the start of a set of building blocks - analogies, psychological mechanisms, and actual experiences - to help us build up an understanding of the mad world around us.

It's a task more noble than "taking on the media", and it's one that
only the blogs can do.

Yes, indeed. Listen to the Reverend and spend your time producing nice, constructive articles about the analogies between Ancient Egyptian burial rites and modern bus routes, instead of hiding in the Vestry with a camera while the vicar 'tutors' the head choirboy. Remember, accountability is for the leetle peeple.

The Tipping Point

As ludicrous as it is to witness Blair's pseudo-Chuchillian posturing on terror, it doesn't even approach within a country mile the chutzpah of his opponents. The prospect of restrictions on the right to claim that Semtex-assisted suicide is a good thing has Liberals channeling Voltaire, but who first started chipping away at the right to free speech anyway ? Ah yes. But is telling the one about the Irishman and the UFO really worse than encouraging people to detonate in the middle of a crowded bus ?

More to the point, the Left already supports actual, specific restrictions on the discussion of religion. Take the increasingly surreal pursuit of BNP Scumenfuhrer Nick Griffin. Try the attempts to bring in laws that will prohibit even talking about Islamic terrorism. Indeed, to follow the logic of Liberal's stated position, they want it to be legal for a Muslim to claim Islam supports suicide bombing, but illegal for an Infidel to do so.

As it happens, in a coincidence too neat for Hollywood, we have a chance to witness the Liberal worldview in action. While the Left is ostentatiously agonising over whether to prosecute naughty preachers, they have no qualms about targeting a real bad guy. Step forward Alan Buchan, now officially worse than Hizb ut Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the rest.

Who ?

Alan Buchan, owner and editor of North East Weekly, a free paper distributed from Peterhead to Aberdeen, of course. Hey - that may sound like an obscure billet, but it's big enough to make him a target of the Race Commissars. Al's crime was to
write an article opposing plans to open an immigrant centre and a prison in his community. True, he has a certain way with words, but colourful language alone hardly constitutes incitement.

Forget Hollywood, the average jornalist's role models aren't Woodward and Bernstein so much as the Lion and the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. In keeping with his low rung on the journalistic ladder, however, Buchan still appears to have retained some integrity:

We are surprised by the police action in this matter as it is of extreme
importance to local people to open up a debate on the effects of the complex
before it is built," said Mr Buchan."The North East Weekly has been calling for
a local referendum on the issue, similar to that held on toll charges in
Edinburgh, so local people can express an opinion on what is being planned."The
police action is a move against press freedom and free speech. We intend to
mount a stout defence of the freedom of speech as this is the only way to defeat
the extremists bringing blood and carnage to the streets of our towns and
cities.

Exactly. This is what the editors of the nationals should be saying - but won't. Bear that in mind the next time you hear them piously intoning on the vital importance of their freedom to publish violence pr0n from Iraq or the like.

Of course, Buchan is quite correct to point out the essential lunacy of the charge. What race are asylum seekers ? Are Mexican asylum seekers and Indian asylum seekers the same race ? And is our putative Indian aylum seeker the same race as a doctor from Bangalore ? The Left won't say, but if they want a conviction they might have to.

That's what's significant about current events. Even ten years ago, the mere charge of racism - no matter how deranged or illogical - was enough to cow people into submission. Now, folks are starting to call the Left's bluff.

We're back to what I keep saying: what the Left fears most of all is people finding out what they really believe. Now that people have stopped folding like a row of tents every time the R-word is mentioned, the Left is forced to articulate its objections, and the public gets a chance to see who they really are. Hear that Nick Griffin has been charged with incitement to racial hatred and it's a dog-bites-man story. Hear that one of the things that got the Left all batey is his comment that 'Britain would sooner or later be struck by Islamic bombers, who would "probably turn out to be second generation Pakistanis from somewhere like Bradford" and that they would probably "blast the hell out of London tube trains and buses." ', and you've got an insight into the mentality of the modern Left. Never mind that Nazi Nick was 100% right, he still shouldn't have been allowed to say it. This is post-modernism gone wild.

For the record, I'm betting that the PF won't proceed with the charges against Buchan. That's good for him, but bad for us. It's always great to see Liberals forced to expand on their philosophy in full view of the public. In particular, it would be good to see the Left forced to discuss just who these 'asylum seekers' actually are. But, irrespective of what happenss in this particular case, the Left has lost its Mojo. They can't shut people up with cries of racism anymore, now they'll have to engage with the arguments. No wonder they're so panicky.

Vegetarian Steak

With all the subtly of a football chant, the Beeb is trying to spin the results of a recent poll on multiculturalism into proof that they're not a bunch of out of touch elitists after all. The headline claims that 'UK majority back multiculturalism', followed by an opening papragraph which claims that 'The majority of British people think multiculturalism makes the country a better place, a BBC poll suggests. '.

Trouble is that as soon as you dig down into the actual results, it all goes horribly wrong for the BBC. Take, for example the finding that '32% think it "threatens the British way of life" and 54% think "parts of the country don't feel like Britain any more because of immigration" '. Right there the Beeb's bandwagon runs into the sand. At least since the Sixties the MSM have been propagandising for multiculturalism, while opponents have risked both legal and career consequences, yet still nearly a third of public are prepared to tell them to shove it. More significantly though, consider the 54% who claim Britain is less British because of immigration. That means 22% of the public aren't prepared to openly admit to opposing multiculturalism - at least not to some inquisitive stranger in the street - yet will admit to qualms about the whole process.

The pattern is repeated in response to other questions:

But the survey suggests a more "confused" attitude to the concept of
multiculturalism, Mr Page added. Some 62% of the national population believe
"multiculturalism makes Britain a better place to live", according to the poll.
At the same time, 58% thought "people who come to live in Britain should
adopt the values of and traditions of British culture".

If there is confusion there, it's hardly the fault of the public. The Left, just like the BNP, has delibratly blurred the distinction between a multiracial and a multicultural society. Native Britons have no great desire for the rantings of the BNP about pure bloodlines and the like. It's not immigrant's DNA they object to, it's their behaviour.

This is an important point about the modern Left: they just can't tell the public what they really believe. They prefer to try and demonise opponents of multiculturalism as Nazis, KKKers or racists, rather than admit that actually they think carving your daughter's genitals out with a razor is every bit as civilised as not doing so. The public may have been variously bamboozled or intimidated into claiming they agree with multiculturalism, but when the rubber meets the road, they overwhelmingly reject the actual practice of multiculturalism (and also female genital mutilation).

Of course, no BBC article is complete without the compulsory Islamocoddling, and here it is: 'The overwhelming majority of Muslims - 89% - said they feel proud when British teams do well in international competitions, a similar figure to the national population. ' Gosh - it makes me feel all warm inside. Except....do well against who ? Sure, they might support England v Germany in the footy, but how's about a Test series against Pakistan ? That's the question of the hour, and - needless to say - the BBC ducks it. Still, we get a subtle hint down below, when we're told that 'Among Muslims, 87% thought multiculturalism improved British society, but only 28% thought people coming from abroad should adopt British culture and values. '. A-huh. But the real lu-lu is coming up:

Ben Page, director of Mori's social research institute, said: "The survey shows
that despite 7/7, the majority of both white British people and Muslims share a
common level of allegiance to Britain and its institutions and seem very
tolerant of each other, in contrast to media reporting following the London
bombing.

Hey, who can he mean ?

That's what's so infuriating about the MSM in general, and the BBC in particular. They yap and yammer about 'accountability' and 'transparency' for everyone else, yet when data is revealed that flatly contradicts their editorial line, they not only publish it with nary a nod to their own previous reports, they do so in a way that seems to suggest we should applaud them for bravely debunking a myth they themselves were instrumental in trying to foist on the public. Can you imagine their reaction if any other company behaved in this way ?

Restart The Jihadis

So finally Blair brings forward anti-terror measures. Say what you like about Blair, but it only takes seconds after the horse has bolted for him to bring forward the Stable Door Act (2005). But better late than never...

Actually, I can't say I'm too impressed. As with much else involving Blair there is all too much of a suggestion of a man trying to have his cake and eat it. Note, for example, that there will be changes to the Human Rights Act to make it more difficult for the Courts to screw up deportations. Well, yeah, but the Courts have long proven that as much as they can do to screw up defence, they’ll do it. As long as the Courts have any role in these matters, they’ll lie in the road trying to obstruct efforts to defend these islands. We don’t need to make changes to the HRA, we need to kill it with a shovel, or at least restrict these rights to citizens and legal residents. In a similar vein, consider the increased use of control orders on terrorists who can’t be deported. Any policy that shrinks away from serving walking papers on known bombers can hardly be called ‘tough’.

It’s one thing for Blair to talk about all these new policies which his government is just about to bring in, but there's something his government could be doing right now. Consider this: what proportion of Mad Mullahs and the like are signing on ? Since when did planning global Jihad get to be counted as being available for work ? How come no one’s asking the loons at Finsbury Park to attend a Restart interview ? Au contrair, the opposite policy appears to be in effect.

So that’s my litmus test: I’ll belive Blair is getting tough when a Jihadi gets his dole claim looked at as sceptically as if he was a forty-something ex-soldier, a former Rover worker or...well, just about anyone else in the country.

What You Won't Be Seeing On The BBC (Part 2756)

Steve offers up another example of the rich, multicultural tapesty of modern London life. Strangely however, MSM seems reluctant to give it the publicity it deserves....

Mr Pot Concern At Terror Plans

Talking of the Treason Party and, more specifically, its conniving attempts to cast itself as some kind of opponent of governmental authoritarianism, consider Chuckie McBlackout’s latest effusion on the subject of national defence:

The government should not let the public mood dictate legislation in the wake of the 7 July London bombings, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has warned.

Given any rational assessment of the relative records of Lib Dem MPs Vs the Man On The Clapham Omnibus, it takes a remarkable degree of chutzpah for Mr Blackout to suggest the public are not qualified to be trusted with the defence of the realm.

Libs In ‘Telling Truth’ Shocker

With even Nu Lab drones backing away, is there anything good that can be said about Walking Licences ID cards ? Ah yes – the Lib Dems oppose them. Right from first principles, that’s not an argument to be brushed aside lightly. But let’s not let the generally awful record of the Treason Party blind us to the very specific insanity of these latest comments.

The thing is that the Treason Party aren’t quite clear about what it actually is they doesn’t like. There’s plenty of talk about ID cards creating a ‘health underclass’, but not so much mention of how exactly. It’s not like there will be literacy tests or a property requirement. Nope – everyone gets one, so what’s the deal ?

You have to wade through approximately 8 tonne of manure to find out that what the Lib Dems are really worried about is this:

[Lib Dem health spokesman Steve Webb] highlighted the government has recent admission that there are perhaps 500,000 people in the UK illegally…..
"The worry is that if the ID card turns into an entitlement card then increasingly they will not be able to access most NHS services," he said.

Yes, indeed. The Libs are worried that ID cards will prevent people who aren’t entitled to NHS treatment obtaining NHS treatment. For most of us, that comes firmly under ‘A Feature Not A Bug’, but not these folks. To be sure, there’s a paper thin attempt to cast Joe Public being bled dry as somehow in his best interest, but it’s kind of weak:

That could mean diseases such as TB went unchecked, he warned, or people would resort to a "black market in back street quackery" for healthcare.

Or they could, y’know, pay for their own healthcare. But no - we’ve got people sneaking into this country and potentially spreading communicable diseases. Clearly the answer is to make barmaids in Blackburn pay for their healthcare. I don’t know though – it seems a little indirect. My plan is to use a little-known ancient procedure our ancestors called ‘deportation’.

Still, this does shine a light on the true nature of the Lib Dems. These people like to posture as guardians of civil liberties, yet time and again it turns out that their objections are based on the ends not the means. Steve Webb isn’t suggesting that ID cards should be opposed because they won’t work, or the price is too high, he’s objecting because he thinks they will work. He thinks we should be taxing security guards in Scunthorpe to pay for the treatment of health tourists. Personally, I think he should be the one being treated, but whatever – just don’t claim he’s making some kind of principled stand for civil liberties.

BBC Coverage Bombs

The Beeb’s coverage of the Hiroshima commemorations is predictably slimy. Here’s the killer fact here:

Many commentators believe the US attack helped bring an early end to World War II in the Pacific.

That’s it, that the sole reference to the fact that Harry Truman didn’t decide to nuke Japan on a whim. No, Mr Liberal, I don’t expect the BBC to recite the litany of Japanese atrocities every time the bomb is mentioned, not least because any reasonable list would fill up the whole article. But if the BBC is going to favour us with lurid descriptions of the effects of the bomb, it has a moral duty to balance that with the historical context.

Anyway, what’s with this ‘many commentators’ thinking the bomb shortened the war ? The bombs were dropped, Japan surrendered. If Liberals could ever demonstrate this kind of cause and effect with global warming, Conservatives would be going to work by Raleigh. Even if you think Japan was bound to collapse anyway, it is ludicrous to suggest that Japan would have gone from defiance to unconditional surrender in nine days, absent the bomb. Who does the Beeb think we were at war with ? France ?

What You Won’t Be Reading In The Guardian This Weekend:

American Genocide ?

America’s Holocaust: Operation Downfall, President Truman and The Invasion of Japan

Julian Tart, Weasel House Books

Well, at least you can’t accuse the good Prof of burying the lede. On the contrary, a bracing directness runs throughout this book. A great deal of research underpins this work, but this is no mere arid regurgitation of the familiar details of mass slaughter. Professor Tart’s book is an openly partisan work in which he acts as Chief Prosecutor, charging President Truman, the US government and, indeed, America in general with the deliberate infliction of mass slaughter on the Japanese people.

The Professor’s charge is simple: that the US knew full well that with the invention of the atomic bomb, there was no need to invade Japan. Rather than the inevitable bloodbath, the US could have ended the war simply by demonstrating the effects of these weapons on a Japanese city or two.

This is hardly an original argument, but what gives makes this book stand out is both the energy and the depth of research which Professor Tart deploys to rebut the two most common reasons put forward to explain US reluctance to use ‘the bomb’. Data from early bomb trials, the author suggests, show that even had it been necessary to launch an atomic attack on a second Japanese city, these two attacks would still have caused less casualties than the incendiary raids on Tokyo. Indeed, as the author clearly shows, rarely did a Japanese city fall with a lower death toll than even the worst-case scenarios of atomic attack. Hence, arguments based on supposed 'moral qualms' about the use of these weapons simply don't stand up.

Prof Tart is similarly dismissive of the other argument commonly deployed: namely that the US could hardly be expected to predict that Japan would fight on even while beaten by all conventional measures. On the contrary, by mid-1945 the US was already all too familiar with the fanatical resistance of the Japanese soldier. Equally, mass suicide of entire families had already been observed when Saipan fell. The US could have no illusions about the likely result of invasion.

But why would the US government deliberately engineer a mass slaughter ? Tart certainly sees merit in the most commonly proposed reason, namely that America’s lust for vengeance post-Pearl Harbour was such that an orderly surrender following the clinical execution of a handful of cities would hardly satiate it, but he also argues that deeper, and far darker forces were at work. With the Cold War looming, the US anticipated that an early demonstration of atomic bombs would not only tip their hand to the Russians but also act as a focal point for pacifists who would seek to obstruct further development of these weapons.

All of the above have been proposed before, albeit rarely so well argued, but what has made the Professor’s work so controversial has been his final suggested reason for the US reluctance to use atomic weapons: pure economic self-interest. While an atomic attack would have destroyed the targeted city, a surrender in August 1945 (the earliest the atomic bomb could be used) would have left Japan with its institutions intact, a functioning civil society and an orderly transfer of power to the US. Nevertheless, surely a degree of Japanophillia is required to suggest, as Tart does, that Japan would then be able to reinvent itself as an economic superpower and competitor to the US ?

Nevertheless, leaving aside the author’s somewhat over-enthusiastic visions of people watching Japanese TVs or driving Japanese cars, this is a compelling indictment of an America which recklessly chose to prolong a brutal war, even while the means of almost instant victory were in its hands. Whether or not we believe Professor Tart’s vision of a ruthless America plotting to slaughter millions of Japanese, we can at least read his book and be reminded again of the horrific final act of the Pacific War, and understand why the names of Tokoyo, Kyoto and Hiroshima will live on for ever as bywords for the savagery of war.

Atrocity D'Jour

It’s a regular old menagerie today: we’ve got a puppy and a horse both chomping away at the Beeb’s latest attempts to uncover the fabled Vast Islamophobic Conspiracy. They’re both right, of course. This isn’t a real scandal, this is a Liberal version of Frankenstein’s monster stitched up in the Beeb’s PC laboratory.

Of course, even the BBC must suspect that these kind of dial-a-whinge operations aren’t enough to convince the Great British Public that the real victims of July 7 are the people who share an ideology with the bombers. Hence why the BBC has a Plan B: yep, it’s the well-known atrocity story gambit. The Puppy covers some of them, but there’s a lu-lu over here.

Yes, indeed: it’s yet another heart-rending tale of Islamopaths suffering…suffering…well, you know, this:

Since 7 July she has had to endure people staring, pointing and making comments about Muslims and bombers, she says.

Well, now, let’s think about this – Islamopaths slaughter large numbers of people on July 7, try to do it again weeks later, we’ve got someone parading round London in full Islamic regalia, and the worst she has to ‘endure’ is people ‘staring, pointing and making comments’. This isn’t proof of British intolerance, this is proof of the complete opposite.

As far as actual atrocities go, our correspondent manages a grand total of one. Apparently, some crazed Infidel decided to slam her daughters hand against a rail on a bus, using a trolley while issuing blood-curdling comments about Islam. As methods of inflicting violence go, this seems kind of indirect. Still, we’re supposed to be appalled at the thought that the bus passengers didn’t immediately rise up and lynch the trolley owner ‘cause y’know, there’s no explanation other than ‘Islamophobia’ which can explain London bus passengers ignoring a victim of crime. A-huh.

But let’s leave aside the fact that you could probably kill, BBQ and eat someone in Hyde Park and the locals would pretend not to notice. What we have here is a situation where an elderly woman is struggling to get off a bus with a trolley and catches a young lass on the hand with it. It must happen about a hundred times a day. That’s probably the other reason why the passengers didn’t get involved - they were trying to guess what that stupid cow in the death cult uniform was screeching about. The public know a loony when they see one. It’s just in the Neverland of the BBC where an unlikely tale of crazed bigots inflicting skinned knuckles on the bus can be the moral equivalent someone actually blowing the bus up.

Meanwhile, the arrest of a Native Briton in connection with the violent death of a Muslim passes with nary a comment at the Beeb. Oops, no – turns out it was the other way round. That explains it.

Exactly

Ace could almost be talking about the BBC:

Liberals' antennae naturally only twitter when they detect certain kinds of
stories. That is, I guess, excusable, but what is not excusable is that they
soon become aware of stories they missed for the first time as they weren't
looking for that sort of story and yet continue to embargo them, knowing full
well that at least half the country is interested in that story... or would be,
were they to lower themselves to report on it.

They claim to have the mission of informing the public, but they only want to inform part of the public, and they only want to inform them of stories that seem to advance the liberal cause.

It's been said over and over, but once again, this time with feeling: There's nothing wrong with a partisan press. One could make the case that such a press is more vibrant and more engaged in the battle of ideas than our supposedly objective press. But a partisan press masquerading as an objective one is simply a lie. And a lie that is hurting the political debate.

BBC: We're Not Biased, Just Biased

Here’s a quick question: which is worse, the Beeb’s usual attitude of snooty arrogance, or those odd moments when it decides to play at being accountable and explain to us lettle peeple exactly why coverage is so screwed up ?

A perfect example of the latter genre is can be found here: it’s the Beeb responding to complaints about the Great Rift Valley style gap in coverage between the vicious slaying of Anthony Walker and the vicious slaying of Richard Whelan. Six O'Clock News Editor Amanda Farnsworth can’t get through the first paragraph without lapsing into absurdity:

The tragic murders of Anthony Walker and Richard Whelan on the face of it have similarities.
Both were young men, in the prime of their lives, much loved
by family and friends, cruelly and viciously murdered.
Both were murdered by men who were not of their own ethnic group. Anthony was a black man murdered by white men. Richard was white, murdered by a black man.

Similarities ‘on the face of it’ ? If these two murders had happened in the same town,it’s quite possible the Bill would be looking for a single suspect. But not in BBC land:

But in fact the two murders are very different.

So there. Just remember that they’re ‘very different’. This next bit still reads wrong though:

As far as I know, from reading the Press Association wires, listening to the police and reading newspaper coverage, the police are not suggesting there was any racial motive in the killing of Richard Whelan.

We pay these people £3 billion p.a. and they get their information from reading other people’s work ? Anyway, the fact that cops aren’t yet ready to ascribe a particular motive to an as yet unknown subject is hardly surprising. But it's enough for the BBC to drop the Whelan case like a stone - or so they'd have us believe.

....It is this racial element to the crime that makes it different.

So that’s the difference? That Richard Whelan was killed by an Equal Opportunity thug ? I bet it’ll be a great reassurance for any blacks who run into his assailant in the near-future to know that he also kills whites. And, anyway, since when did a change in a single factor constitute ‘very different’ ?

The next lines should stand as proof that Liberals will throw any article of faith overboard if needs be:

Racially motivated murders, I'm sure we are all glad to say, are rare events. They are unheard of in this area of Liverpool.
Unfortunately, senseless murders in London are comparatively more common.

Must be a crisis if the BBC starts praising Liverpool.

In addition, there was a planning and premeditation in the murder of Anthony Walker that was also particularly shocking.
Anthony had walked away from the man racially abusing him but the man appears to have gone to find his friends, and an axe, and chased and killed the 18-year-old.

Actually, having to run off halfway through for an axe and some mates doesn’t exactly speak of a great deal of planning. As opposed to the assailant in the Whelan case who was already carrying a huge knife and spent fifteen minutes trying to provoke his victim.

So let’s take it as read that the BBC isn’t ready to abandon the idea of Dave Lister as the archetypal Scouser and that men prepared to dedicate a quarter of an hour to provoking an incident can’t hardly be said to be acting spontaneously. What we are left with as justification for the enormous gaposis is simply that one attack was racial in nature and one may not have been. A-huh.

At this point, it’s worth considering what definition of racism is being used. Remember that the Beeb was once the employer of Greg “hideously white” Dyke, while also being a big booster for the Macpherson’s inspired concept of ‘institiutional racism’. The point is that the BBC as a body has fully accepted a central part of the Liberal agenda, namely the idea that a charge of racism requires only that an organisation, for whatever reason, acts in such a way as to disadvantage a particular ethnic group. I think we can safely say that this disparity in coverage between these two murders certainly qualifies under that definition. Indeed, even non-Kool Aid drinkers may consider that the disparity in coverage was such as to be objectively racist.

Leaving aside these more philosophical considerations, the fact remains that the BBC’s response begs the question. Doubtless, there are people outside the BBC who think that a racist murder is somehow more shocking than any other form of senseless violence, but there are plenty that don’t. On the contrary, Conservatives reject both the proposition itself and the unpleasant ideology behind it.

This is the true measure of how inbred the BBC has become, how much the Beeb has embraced every form of diversity except the only one that really matters, intellectual diversity. There’s no around in the BBC hierarchy who can take Mandy aside and whisper in her ear that trying to disavow bias by citing the tenets of Liberal identity politics is probably not going to work.

Did Someone Say 'Racial Profiling' ?

Honestly, you need a scorecard to keep up with these people. Liberals have backflipped again. Having spent the last four years claiming that critics of Islam are just racists seeking out any excuse to persecute dark-skinned folks, the Left have belatedly discovered that Islam is a religion not a race. What could have happened ?

Yes, indeed. Someone must have mentioned racial profiling. Hence the sudden flood of L3 pointing out that the Ummah includes members of every racial group imaginable. When we said that, it was just a slippery evasion, but now Liberals are screaming it at the top of their lungs. Or at least they would be, except they’re all tied up in Liverpool, protesting the fact that officers investigating the death of Anthony Walker haven’t interviewed any 80 year-old grandmothers, Djibril Cisse or the staff of the Forbidden City takeaway.

No, not really.

What really is a slippery evasion is the phrase ‘racial profiling’ itself: no one is talking about using race as a single factor and more to the point, that isn’t what the Left is really objecting to anyway. No one is suggesting that the security forces concentrate their efforts on Druze Arabs, Persian Zoroastrians or Sudanese animists. No – the real debate is about concentrating effort on followers of the ideology which gave the world 9-11, Beslan, Bali, Madrid and London. One ideology was responsible for all these incidents, and many more, but the Left would rather you didn’t mention it. After all – you wouldn’t want to upset the ‘slims – they might do something crazy.

Este é um país, não um hotel

The recent spate of bombings by second-generation Asians is supposed to signal the beginning of the end for the multi-cultists. Me, I think we should recognise the excellent work of the Menezes family in this area. As the Rotty Pup points out, St Jean the Martyr was hardly the paragon the Left would like us to believe (although it does raise the interesting question of when the Left decided fraud and tax evasion for personal profit was a good thing). But it’s not just that.

As far as I’m concerned, morally speaking, we as a nation owe the same duty of care to illegal immigrants as a householder does to a burglar – none at all, and yes, I know our Liberal-dominated legal system has a different view. But it’s not just that either.

No, what really gives the game away is the massive, malignant sense of entitlement on display. Take the ‘all gringos are b*****ds’ ranting of the deceased’s cousin. Where was he issuing these tirades against the feelthy Inglise ? Sao Paulo ? Rio ? No, London. He hates Britain, just not enough to leave it.

We’re talking about people who’ve come to this country to enjoy a life style far beyond anything they could get back home, and their response ? An attitude of whining querulousness, as though to suggest that if we don’t get it sorted, why they'll leave and start bleeding someone else’s country dry. True, Menezes had cheated his way into the county, fiddled his way round all the taxes and regulations that the Left thinks are so important for the natives, and generally made no apparent positive contribution whatsoever to the life of the nation, but that shouldn’t disqualify him from the All-You-Can-Grab entitlement buffet. This is the true nature of multiculturalism: people diving off the 747 and taking full advantage of what life here offers while simultaneously demonstrating utter contempt for this country and everyone in it.