Foxes Meet To Discuss Henhouse Security

Today was the day Princess Tony met the Manchurian Candidate to discuss party funding. I haven’t heard any reports of the meeting, but I’ll take a wild shot in the dark as to the conclusion: both parties are bent as a £7 note so the only answer is to give them huge amounts of public money, presumably with a small sum set aside to investigate why people are so cynical about politics. Maybe they should remind people that if it wasn’t for Big Government people in businesses would be able to get together to rip off the public ?

Still, there’s something weird in finding out just how dependent the ‘People’s Party’ is on filthy lucre from millionaires. Then again, what’s with a Party that supposedly represents low tax and personal responsibility getting behind massive bailout for a failing nationalised industry ? Right for Scotland explains what’s going on. The delightful duopoly have so successfully alienated just about everyone in the country with a real job that few people see any ideological reason to support them. Hence, it’s all about payback.

Needless to say, this has passed the MSM by. Of course. The MSM exists in the self-same bubble as the politicians, they never meet any normal people either. Equally, it was the MSM that started this sudden demand for cash in the first place. Seriously, has any sane person ever changed their vote through seeing a party leader being serenaded by twenty-six dwarfs ? Nope, these insane photo ops are all about appealing to the jaded hacks in the MSM, with the public as bemused onlookers.

It was only recently that I realised what this reminded me of. Here, we have the MSM breathlessly reporting on a bunch of vacuous Metropolitan weenies, while the public at large ignores them completely. The MSM keeps telling us how brilliant they are, and the public keep spending their money somewhere – anywhere – else, so naturally these people demand huge quantities of public money so they can keep on producing their self-indulgent garbage. No wonder politicians get on so well with movie people. No wonder the parties are so brokeback.

So now we have Nu Lab in favour of the redistribution of wealth from the poor to ad agencies, while the Tories claim people choosing who to give money to is undemocratic. The argument goes that if we don’t give these low-life huge amounts of public money, they’ll take industrial quantities of bribes. I’m not sure when being unbelievably corrupt became an argument for being trusted with public money. Speaking personally, I favour an alternative way to deal with rampant bribery, the method used in every other sector in Britain. Not only would this clean up politics, it would also reduce other forms of crime. After all, what better deterrent could there be than the possibility of having David Cameron as a cell mate ?

Feminazis No Longer Pro-Choice

Via Mike Jericho, more evidence of that Liberal tolerance.

It's National Socialism

Also hitting the nail on the head is DSD when he points out an odd political fact: Nick Griffin's latest manoeuvre means that the head of the BNP has denounced anti-Semitism far more forcefully than 90% of the Left (and let’s not even mention Cuddly Ken ‘Jews Go Home!’ Livingstone).

Of course, like DSD, I suspect it’s all BS, but isn’t that significant in and off itself ? The media’s favourite example of a ‘far right’ politician perceives a political advantage in coming out against Judenhass. What does that say about the Right ? And what does it say about the ‘tolerant’ Left that it’s hard to think of a prominent Leftist who has made a similar statement ?

Seal Off The Borders

The blogosphere is abuzz with news of Border’s collapse to the Islamopaths. Actually, it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. Consider their previous surrenders over the Satanic Verses and the positioning of the Koran (really!).

There’s a certain logic to Border’s move, of course. It’s that old thing about risk vs reward. Border’s face the risk of enraged Islamopaths vs the (short-term) reward of knocking out a few copies of a reasonably obscure magazine. Put that way, it sounds like an easy (if hardly inspiring) decision.

This is back to something I was writing about a few days ago. Our supposedly hip’n’happening intellectual classes extol the virtues of both multiculturalism and the market. Well, this is what happens when this type of thinking is allowed to predominate free of any higher principles. Everyone agrees that free speech is kind of important, but no one will be the one to actually defend it. It’s the culture war's very own Prisoner’s Dilemma.

So how do we get out of this ? Actually, it seems like we’re already making a start. While bombings get the headlines, most companies fold because they’re faced with the prospect of Islamopath boycotts and the like. On the other hand, if they surrender, all that’ll happen is that most people will be disgusted but won’t feel they can do much about it. Except now we’re online, we can see that there are plenty of other people who share our disgust. MSM to the contary, there are plenty of folks out there who’ve had it up to here with Islamopaths and their dhimmi enablers.

If all companies can understand is the bottom line, then that’s where we have to hit them. Hey – it’s not even a matter of principle: the whole advantage of Borders vs You-Know-Who is that you can browse around and maybe find something new. Now, it turns out you can browse around and find something new, providing the local Mullah doesn’t object to it. Who needs that ? So yay for the boycott. Who’d have thought you’d be able to help defend Western Civilisation by clicking here ?

It's Not About The Science

Devil’s Kitchen takes the words right out of my mouth when it comes to medics who proclaim themselves shocked – shocked! – by the coming measles epidemic. It really is more than flesh and blood can stand hearing these folks taking out an onion for all those crippled kids while they themselves had blocked one of the primary means of preventing the epidemic.

Sure, there are some anti-vaccination kooks who just plain don’t like the whole scheme, but there are a hell of a lot more parents who were/are worried about the MMR vaccine in particular. Not only did the government not give these parents the option of single jabs, they actually went out of their way to nobble those clinics which did offer these jabs – and yes, the scientific establishment was 100% behind them. See, that’s the problem right there. Measles is that bad, so surely almost any counter-measure must be justifiable ? But no, they theytell us that the single jabs are expensive, have lower efficacy, take up more medical time…..

Hang on a minute. These people just got through telling us how awful measles was – against that background, surely their reasons for refusing to deploy the single vaccine seem distinctly anorexic ?

The real reason why these people will not countenance deployment of the single vaccines is given away by one of DK’s commentors when he claims that ‘The media stoked a frenzy for their own dubious interests, the job then fell on the NHS to crush it, not pander to it.’ Huh ? Ever since Wakefield’s report came out the scientific establishment has been trying to ‘crush’ this issue. Less crushing and more science might have saved us all a lot of trouble.

The clue is that, as ever, when these people say ‘media’ they mean ‘public’. This debate was about who runs science. Almost from day one, this issue was perceived as the Dien Bien Phu of the science wars. This was the issue the scientists would use to crush those interlopers and their talk of ‘oversight’, ‘accountability’ and the like.

Having kids die or be crippled by measles is one thing, but public scrutiny ? Now that’s terrifying. Even now, the scientific establishment could yet save lives, if only they would demand deployment of the single vaccine, but they won’t. More than that, having stood aside and let it happen, they’ll wave the bloody shirt to ‘prove’ the dangers of public accountability. That’s how utterly detached these people are from reality. They’ll exploit a hideous disease and the death and mutilation of children to try and prove that we should…. trust them ?

What have they been injecting ?

The Hole

Last week provided a too perfect for fiction chance to compare the two sides in the current conflict. While the organisers of the March for [ ] thrashed about desperatly trying to find a way to protest against barking without mentioning dogs, elsewhere in London there was no such equivocation. At the Old Bailey, prosecuters recounted how Muslims talked about trying to poison football fans and blow up holidaying families. Listening to desperate flip-flopping on the one hand, and joyous blood lust on the other, it was hard not to let one thought dominate all others: we could lose this thing.

Robert Ferrigno has been thinking along the same lines. His new novel 'Prayers for the Assasin' is set in an Islamic States of America in 2042. How and why the US collapsed is revealed over the course of the book. Yep, it's that cliche of the future history genre, the 'dark secret that must be hidden', but the main interest is not the hunt for the secret - it's obvious from almost the first page - so much as the brilliant description of an Islamic America. Ferrigno has clearly studied Islam in depth, and so he describes not only what an Islamic America could be like, so much as what it very probably would be like.

Of course, this book has its flaws. Sometimes the story seems to teeter on the edge of becoming a generic chase thriller. Similarly, one of the bad guys is a cliched smoothie sociopath, a Hannibal Al-Lector. The biggest problem however - as with much else in life - is PC, albeit of the gender rather than racial sort. The demands of the publishing world for the proverbial 'strong, female characters' means that Ferrigno is forced to introduce an absurd distinction in his Islamic society between fundementalists and supposed 'moderns', with 'modern' women free to, well, carry on as normal. In so far as Islam is anything but normal in its treatment of women, this undercuts the whole vision, but at least it allows the deeply annoying female lead to indulge in enough acts of derring-do to satisfy the editors while Ferrigno manages to slip in enough hints of how fundementalist women are treated to get the message out. Indeed, one of the most chilling scenes in the whole book is when a thuggish religious policeman is inspecting a fundementalist female-only cyber cafe.

Ultimatly, what gives this work its power is that Ferrigno is no mere 'Nuke Mecca' ranter. On the contary, Ferrigno bends over backwards to be fair to Islam, for example the first of only two references to Islam's weird hatred of Man's Best Friend is where the protagonist has to step round 'dog product' while walking through a dhimmi area. Equally, while the word 'dhimmitude' never appears in the text, Ferrigno is unsparing in his description of the reality of the state-not-to-be-named. That's the point, of course. Ferrigno is content simply to let details speak for themselves - the essential lunacy of Islam needs no embellishment (which is why the Al-Beeb will never refer either to dhimmitude or the hatred of dogs).

What really worries Ferrigno is summed in his acknowledgements when he quotes Simone de Beauvoir on the atheistic implications of her work 'One can abolish water, but one cannot abolish thirst'. It's not just metaphysics, Ferrigno is alive to the way Islam provides a sense of community - one of the most memorable moments in the book is the description of the protagonists caught up in the rush to morning prayer, with all manner of people moving as one to the mosques. It's this sense of belonging, of identity, that explains a least as much of the lure of Islamolunacy as the mystical nonsense.

Above all else, Islam offers answers. Admittedly, rubbish answers, but this is ground deserted by most of the West's self-proclaimed so-fist-ikates, the people who pride themselves on their ability to 'raise questions', 'challenge orthodoxies' and similiar idiocies. Maybe these people's constant ranting about 'fascists' arises from a haunting guilt that all this just isn't good enough. We know what they don't believe in, but what do they actually stand for ?

In this respect, the March for [ ] was the reification of everything that's wrong in mainstream Western Culture. Sure, some may object to Ferrigno's implicit belief that a secular, post-modern West can not win against Islam, but what do they offer ? Simply yapping about 'freedom' isn't enough. Even Ayn Rand recognised the essentially vacuous nature of much Libertarianism - Objectivism was her attempt to produce a rational basis for this sphere of ideology. Few since has faced up the challenge. If our intellectual classes are going to spend their time whining about fascists and sneering at tradition, then the onus is on them to come up with a real 'ideology of freedom'. That's not going to be easy in a country where even nominally right-wing MPs vote for Walking Licences, but at least in Robert Ferrigno we now have an author not afraid to give us a glimpse of the price of failure, and for that we should all be suitably grateful.

Where Every Night Is 70s Night

Like many people, I was shocked by the news that one and a half million council workers were going on strike today. Chiefly, I was shocked by the revelation that we have one and a half million smoking cessation officers, diversity coordinators and sundry other bottom inspectors.

Strangely, civilisation has managed to survive a day without their input (and without millions suddenly sparking up). Some would say this raises the question of whether the nation needs so many outreach officers. Not at the BBC though. Jeremy Vine featured as its two examples of striking workers, a teaching assistant and a fingerprint technician. Yep, that is exactly representative of the average council worker. Hey, with 1.5 million sucking hard on the public teat, every cop in the country could have his own technician and every teacher their own assistant and we still couldn’t account for half of them.

In so far as they have an actual argument as to why their lifestyle should be subsidised by people with real jobs, it’s that they’re being discriminated against. Don’t laugh – they claim they should be allowed to retire early because people like cops are allowed to. A-huh. So pen pushers who get their paycheque from Her Majesty’s Government should be given privileges denied folks who push pens for an insurance company because policing is a dangerous and violent job. Of course.

The other argument deployed is that Enron-style pensions are written into their contract and employers can’t arbitrarily change the terms of the employment contract, an argument which surely proves beyond all reasonable doubt that these people exist in a world of their own. In the private sector employers screw around with contracts all the time. They also fire people, make massive redundancies and randomly redeploy people around the country. All the government wants to do is make the Turkey Army work to the same age as everyone else. There is no better explanation of why our public services are so decisively screwed than the sight of red-faced bloaters screeching their outrage at the fact they’re being treated as though they worked in the real world.

Liberals Unveil New Slogan: Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Something Else!

Surprisingly, despite the organisers’ strategy of trying to ban most of the people who would turn up, the ‘March for Free Expression’ was a flop. Apparently, the public were not inspired by a demonstration for free expression where you couldn’t actually express yourself freely.

It does raise an interesting philosophical question though: is it ironic, or just stupid, that a guy so obsessed with insensitive language calls his opponents 'fascists' ? See, here’s the thing: we’re talking about people who think you should be killed for publishing stuff they disagree with, and the fascists are the people who oppose them ? How does that work ?

As if calling a large chunk of potential supporters 'fascists' wasn’t enough, the next trick was to claim a moral equivalence between the Cartoon Jihad and the folks from Christian Voice protesting outside performances of Jerry Springer: The Opera. Huh ? So it was a demonstration against the right of people to demonstrate ? And people say Liberals haven’t got a well worked out philosophy.

Just for any members of the hard-of-thinking out there, I’ll spell it out: when Christain Voice demonstrates against performances of JStO, they’re not opposing free speech, they’re exercising it. You have the right to freedom of expression, but so do your opponents. That’s why it’s called the right to free speech, not the right to be universally applauded.

Of course, this painful attempt to draw equivalence between some old folks with placards and the July 7 bombers exposes perfectly the central flaw in the whole concept of the march. Free expression isn’t threatened by climate change, big business, or any of the Left’s other usual suspects, least of all by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and its cunning plan to abolish free speech by supporting it, but the Left is still stuck in the paradigms of student politics.

The March for Free Expression isn’t proof that the Left has finally woken up to the danger, it’s the complete opposite. Even with maniacs wandering round with placards calling for the beheading of opponents, the Left can't even bring itself to name the enemy. After all, someone may mistake them for right-wingers. Hence the desire to square the circle, to find a proverbial ‘Third Way’ or the equally elusive ‘moderate Muslims’.

If it achieved nothing else, at least the March for Free Expression has proved the essential truth of the time honoured advice from the Right to the Left: Liberals, shut the hell up, we’ll save civilisation.

Our European Partners

So a guy starts talking English and the French turn and run ? I thought that only happened when you spoke German ?

See, That's What We Were On About

Just so you know were we are today with Blair's pledge that NuLab would be purer than pure, the first casaulty of the scandal over secret loans to Labour turns out to be a businessman not a politician. Of course.

This is the point Conservatives keep making. Liberals try and justify their regulatory meglomania by claiming that business would run rampant without the dead hand of government keeping them under control, but cases like this prove the complete opposite. If nothing else, Blair has shown there are almost no limits to what a government can get away with, providing only that they can fool enough folks to get a majority every now and again. Things were a little different for Capita - their government contracts might be like having a money tree, but being known as the folks who have to bribe the government to get work would be fatal for seeking private sector contracts. That's why Aldridge has gone while so many Labour hacks remain. For all that Liberals like to claim massive regulation provides 'public accountability', the market provides a far faster and more ruthless punishment for misconduct than the sleazy cesspit of politics ever can.

Liberalism In A Nutshell

The attorney general has revealed how he was taken on to a Navy submarine to make clear the need for him to give speedy legal advice in times of war.

Teabreak's Over! Everyone Back On Your Heads

Back when Liberals were trying to drown out anyone asking just who it was who had killed Mary Ann Leneghan, they were insisting that the real issue was just how so many obviously dangerous members of the undead community were on the streets despite prior convictions for serious offences. I'm guessing the L3 must think they've got away with it, because normal service has been resumed in our courts.

Moral Cartographers Needed

Just how far down the U-bend has the BBC gone ? Consider this topic on (Don't) Have Your Say: 'Should Religious Converts Be Punished?'

Gosh, is murdering converts alright or not ? We may never know!

Anyway, didn't religion used to be the opium of the masses ? I guess Marx had his chance to destroy the West, now it's Islams's turn. Call it a wild shot in the dark, but I'm thinking that if America suddenly suffers another rash of shark attacks, the BBC will run a DHYS thread on whether eating people is wrong.

Meanwhile, the BBC - ever on the alert for those crazy 'extremists' - has chosen to make this a 'fully moderated' topic, thereby offering further clues as to what definition of extreme the BBC is employing. Consider, for example, that all of the following are A-OK with the BBC:

Afghanistan is a sovereign country. How about everybody stops commenting on THEIR buisiness? Laws are laws. Afghanistan has an elected government. Or are we only happy when the results from elected governments are "correct"? Mind you own buisiness.

Chris Irvine

Apparently, Liberals really do inhabit a different universe to the rest of us, at least to judge by their interpretation of the concept of 'universal' human rights.

if this man is killed, and america continues to fund afgahnistan, then america, not islam or the afgahis, are only to blame. america turns a blind eye on nations like this, so long as they fit within america's agendas. wake up gwb, and start practicing what you preach.

ralph kimball, augusta, ga, United States

Yep, Islam is a barbaric ideology, therefore the only answer is to turn the country over to hard-line Islamopaths. It's all so obvious...

This issue is not so much about religious freedom or lack thereof, rather of the East's rejection of all things western of which Christianity is the foremost symbol. The west has done nothing to ingratiate itself with the East thereby staunchly pre-disposing them to loathe the west. Claiming that an individual must die for a personal choice is undeniably irrational but is the East trying to make an anti-west statement? One wonders. Or at least one should.

Sakshi Hazuria, Salt Lake City, USA

Doncha'just love it when you see these people slagging off the West from the well-known African state of Utah ? Apparently, the West is hell, but not in the sense of somewhere you wouldn't want to live.

But wait, we can't have a proper DHYS thread on the Religion of Peace without you-know-who, where can he be ?

Although this is a ridiculous thing to happen and totally unIslamic (there is no compulsion in religion), aren't we in the West the ones who brought 'freedom and democracy' to Afghanistan after invading it? So who are we to criticise the laws of that 'free and democratic' nation? This sort of event just gives another excuse for all the Islamophobes and xenophobes to crawl out of the woodwork and vent their nasty prejudices against Muslims and Islam in general.

Bilal Patel, London, UK

Phew! The end of the world has been averted, Bilal is back, and with another excellent point. Islamopaths murdering people who escape from the death cult is wrong because it strengthens the case for people who oppose the Religion of Peace. Who says it's a religion of amoral sociopaths ?

BBC Bias Positively Encouraged

I've been out of the loop for the last couple of days, so I'm trying to catch up on recent events. As I understand it, a completely random group of people have been charged with plotting acts of terrorism to no particular end, at least that's the impression I get from reports like this from the BBC.

C'mon, is there anyone in the known universe who's still buying this ? As Mark Steyn points out, the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks and the July 7 attacks were both called Mohammed - who'd have thunk it ?

Normally, BBC bias is plenty annoying. After all, we're talking about a body that jelously defends its legal right to shake down the public for filthy lucre, even while spending its time slandering a large chunk of the country. Still, when the BBC is producing poorly-written dramas featuring moustache-twirling Conservatives throwing poor people into furnaces so they can sell arms to CIA-backed dictators in the former USSR, there is a lingering fear that some people might actually believe this. I'm not so sure that even the BBC can sell people on the idea that it's just a coincidence that disproportionate numbers of Islamically-inclined folks keep getting caught up in cases like this. Au contrair, the BBC's constant attempts to sell us all on the idea that it's all a huge coincidence may just be the Liberal media's own Stalingrad.

Who's This 'We' Paleface ?

Talking of Liberals blaming the victim, check out the headline here: 'Livingstone in fresh Jewish controversy'. Ah yes, one of the chief apologists for open borders immigration (and the subsequent open welfare wallets, of course) unleashes his inner taxi driver on two successful businessmen, who - by an amazing coincidence - happen to be Jewish, and that's a 'Jewish controversy'. Really ? Is that how far down the sewer the modern Left has gone, that they can't even concieve of any non-hook nosed person being appalled by this lowlife's anti-Semitic rantings ? Never mind the blatant attempt to cast this as another case of those whiny kikes bitching again, what about the implication that the rest of us are somehow OK with climbing into the Left's cess pit of Jew hating lunacy ?

Moronic Convergence Continues

OK, now we are definitely aproaching the end times, when all the world's stupidities will coagulate into one massive singularity of idiocy. Liberals keep coming up with bizzaro world explanations for why Conservatives are exactly like Nazis, but then we find out that it's the L3 that seem to be swapping talking points with the jackbooted untermensch. Both sets of collectivist trash seem to agree that Mary Ann Leneghan was asking for it. Try this comment:

As Richard Latham QC, prosecuting, admitted: “Mary-Ann (and her friend) were not without their problems. Mary-Ann was bunking off school, neither had a job. They were certainly not the sort of girls who would have been tucked up at home at 10 o’clock at night."

Let's see that one again:

As Richard Latham QC, prosecuting...

Yep. That does say 'prosecuting'. Maybe the government's trying to cut down on the Legal Aid bill by having one guy represent both sides ?

Whazzat ?

Mr Liberal would like to point out that calling the vics scum could all be a cunning ploy by the prosecution. OK, but was it a cunning ploy to also take at face value the killers' claim that Mary Ann had taken part in a drugs heist ? Seems to me that only two people know the truth of that, one a murderer and one who's not available to testify. Since when have self-confessed drug-dealing killers been regarded as credible witnesses ?

Naturally enough, these attempts to blacken the name of the victims of extreme sexual violence have raised the hackles of the femiloon community. And when I say 'raised the hackles of', I mean in the sense of 'been completely ignored by'. Apparently, it is OK to talk about the past history of rape victims, but only when it's strictly relevant to the needs of Liberalism.

The femiloons aren't the only one suffering Sudden Backflip Syndrome. Before the Crown decided criticising the victims of ethnic violence was a perfectly valid tactic, they thought it was grounds for prosecution. Nick Griffin's own trial blog records the Crown's weird obsession with his comments on Stephen Lawrence (here, for example). Think that one through: if 'Richard Latham QC, prosecuting' had come out with similar comments about Stephen Lawrence, he might have ended up in the dock. Gosh, I guess there must be some kind of difference between Mary Ann Leneghan and Stephen Lawrence. What can it be ?

By the way, just so you know, St Stephen of Lawrence was killed at around 10:30 PM, and I bet there's more chance of our next PM being a duck called 'Ralphie' than there is of any Liberal ever having sneered about him not being tucked up after 10 PM.

Brutal Rape/Murder In Reading, No Sikhs Involved

Say what you like about Liberals, but they're admirably hard-headed about sacrificing even their most committed brethren once they've become a liability to the Liberal cause. Look at the way events in Reading have suddenly given Liberals in the judicial system that 'pushed under the bus' feeling. Back when the Probation Service was merely causing the deaths of innocents, the Left was foursquare behind them, but now times have changed. Suddenly, even the BBC is reporting on their impressive record of scalps. What's gone right ?

Call me cynical, but whenever I hear Liberals suddenly tell the truth, I find myself asking this: what are they trying to hide. Well, take a look at this report here, or more specifically one section of it:

They found Mary-Ann and her friend drinking wine and sitting in a car belonging to a female friend called Shazia Ishaq.

"Just the girls we've been looking for," said Thomas.

Mary-Ann and her friend were dragged out of the car by the hair and bundled into the boot of the gang's car, which was already full with six men inside.

Shazia only escaped by lying about being pregnant.

Yep, everything we've heard about these charmers tells me that they're the just the sort of folks to be strong pro-lifers.

But wait... I've just had an e-mail from a Mr Sane, he'd like to point out this post.

Ah huh.

Yes, Mr Liberal, it is technically true that none of the guilty parties have published a pamphlet called 'Why I Like Raping & Murdering Infidel Women', but the evidence for an Islamic connection is at least as compelling as 99% of the incidents the MSM cheerfully call 'racially-motivated' - but only if the scumbag in question is native British.

Ah yes, that would be the thing.

For all their supposed obsession with context and nuance, when it comes to cases like this, Liberals bend over backwards to present every case like this as sui generis. It's a series of totally unique events that - amazingly - keep happening. Femiloons who normally spend their days claiming that the design of cornflake packages oppresses women, find absolutely nothing worthy of comment in a culture that produces gang rapists by the dozen. Equality freaks see no problem in a serious of violent outbreaks along ethnic lines. And the police ? They're tied up looking for offensive golliwogs.

Maybe there are Liberals in the justice system unhappy at being set up for the political equivalent of human sacrifice to the gods of multiculturalism. Considering the price paid by folks like Mary-Ann Leneghan, I think they got off lightly.

Moonbats To MSM: Thanks For Covering For Us!

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Big Fleas, Little Fleas

It's an A-List cage fight! Oliver Kamm has written an article for the Times basically lamenting that they let anyone in the Blogosphere these days. Blog evangelist Jackie D has struck back by claiming that even if 99% of us are idiots, this technology allows us to combine our stupidity and create a sort of virtual intelligence.

Well, whatever. What chiefly annoyed me was Kamm resurrecting an old charge against the Blogosphere, namely that bloggers are essentially parasitic on the MSM. Sure enough, but isn't there an element of pots & kettles here ? Consider the constant yelping during the last Gulf War that the military weren't fast enough to supply the MSM with up to the minute reports on what every unit was doing. So this is what 150 years of technological advances have done for reporting, from William Howard Russell witnessing the Charge of the Light Brigade, to a barrel load of whiny brats demanding that soldiers drop stories in their lap. Say what you like about bloggers, but at least we don't storm into newspaper officers 30 minutes before deadline and demand the staff open up their archives for us.

The bottom line is that the MSM just doesn't do that much original reporting anyway, not once you factor out the rewritten PR garbage, the space given over to activist whiners and the constant pillaging of the cuttings file. The Martians could land in Sheffield and the MSM wouldn't notice until they issued a press release.

How Chips Prove Cameron Is Worthless

I don't know if it's just me, or if other Right-wing bloggers get e-mails every fortnight or so from enraged L3. The usual charge is that I'm unfairly stereotyping the Left when ,in fact, the modern Left includes a whole kaleidoscope of different views. Well, sure. chihuahuas are different from rottweillers, but no one objects to the word 'dog'. All this talk about the infinite varieties of Liberalism, just as much as the absurd attempts by Liberals to rebrand themselves as 'progressives' or 'moderates', is just a slippery way to distance themselves from the collectivist thuggery that is the real distinguishing mark of Liberalism.

The Liberal commitment to freedom turns out to be a commitment to allow people to do whatever they agree with. For proof of what Liberals really believe, consider the Food Wars.

We're told that massive government regulation of the food supply is justified by the health dangers of eating the wrong food. Really ? Don't plenty of things have negative health consequences ? How about promiscuous anal sex ? How come Libs don't want to force the manager of the Blue Oyster Bar to put up warning signs ? But no, Liberals spent years claiming they wanted government out of the bedroom - they never mentioned they wanted it to go downstairs and regroup in the fridge.

So, right from the off, there's a basic absurdity there, but it gets deeper. Consider the latest developments. Here's the Treason Party's spokesman on Tesco's excellent decision to tell the Health Nazis to shove it:

They have huge influence on our culture and what we eat. It is irresponsible for such a company to go it alone when it comes to public health.

The Health Nazis wanted to mau-mau the big supermarkets into following their loony agenda, but now Tesco has decided to call their bluff. Going it alone ? If that's true then Tesco's sales will plunge and Webb has nothing to worry about. But I'm guessing things will go the other way, and so apparently is Webb, hence the absurd whining about Tesco being 'as powerful as the government'. Yes, indeed, it's all a dark conspiracy.

What it's all about is what it's always about. Liberals claim that we are in the grip of a national health crisis caused by eating the wrong food, and the only answer is massive government regulation. Then again, this is what they say about the environment as well. Also, education, business and everything else, except terrorism. Government power can turn Johnny Vegas into Arnold Schwarzenegger, but national defense is outside their competence.

What's most striking about this case though is the outright murder of the English language. Consider this:

Its attitude to competition and food labeling is symptomatic of an arrogance on the part of big supermarkets.

Let's leave aside the absurdity of an unabashed advocate of massive state power claiming to worry about 'competition', and just consider the sheer chutzpah of claiming that a business is arrogant for refusing to accede to the demands of a group of unrepresentative fanatics. Tesco are, quite literarily, minding their own business. It's fascist creeps like Webb who want to impose their agenda on the public.

In no country with a functional right-wing party would Liberals be able to get away with this kind of rhetoric. Unfortunately, it's not even clear that there's anyone left in Opus Dave that can see the absurdity of the charge. This is why the argument that rightists should support the Conservative Party as being the least-worst credible government falls down. It's not just about which specific laws are passed, it's about culture too. Right now, Liberals have waged the war so effectively that a company which seeks no more than to give the public what they want can be denounced as 'arrogant'. Whatever trivial legislative changes a Cameron government may make, without a determination to wage the Culture War, Liberalism will continue to make inroads into British culture.