On the Other Hand...

On the plus side, in so far as the Sharon Shoesmith case featured the Supreme Court attacking Ed Balls from the left, I think that pretty much closes out the debate on our independent judiciary.

Not that there isn't a certain rough justice in seeing Balls get the shaft. After all, not only does his government introduce all this nonsense, they also presided over the infiltration of the public services by freaks like Shoesmith in the first place. On the other, other hand, the Nu Tories have predictably jumped on this case like a vampire jumping on a sun bed. As ever, there's no one there who can see that this is an example of Labour's stealthiest, and most destructive, tax.

All across the country, there are Sharon Shoesmiths: lazy, arrogant, entitled idiots, free to cause organisational chaos in the sure and certain knowledge that the worst they'll face is double secret probation.

Never mind cutting taxes, or streamlining government departments. Being able to fire deadbeats again would revive the economy overnight.

She's Not Erin Brockovch, She's The Plant Owner

There is no better barometer of how utterly liberalism has hollowed out the British left than that so many soi-dissant socialists have chosen to elect Sharon Shoesmith as Baby Seal D'Jour.

These people claim to be the modern avatars of the poor but proud union members who took on and beat ruthless pit owners. Now they're rallying around someone who got paid more than a cabinet minister but still presided over a department in such a state of chaos that a young child could be tortured to death with no one noticing.

Add in Shoesmith's sneering one-liners like 'I don't do blame', and what we have here is the perfect pin-up girl for the unaccountable elitists who dominate the modern left. If the EdMilliband Unit wants to work out why the Earthlings don't trust Labour, he may want to think about not allowing his party to offer aid and sanctuary to smug, overpaid trash like this.

Red On Red

Now do you believe me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there's this....

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

She's a liberal heroine!

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

She's a raycist!

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

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

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

Reminder: Feminism Is A Parasitic Ideology

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

Behold the power of the Dark Side!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authorities Do Not Yet Have A Motive Clue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Comment So Far On Bin Laden's Death Scene

Over at NRO:

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

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

God Save The Queen's Head

Yep, it's a tricky dilemma all right. Speaking as a real conservative, and therefore someone who even in his resting state generates as much patriotism as 1.6 million David Camerons, I was tempted to watch the Royal Wedding, but then I remembered I'm not gay.

Besides, it has the same flaw as every other wedding: no matter how much you slice and dice it, you're still seeing a man descend into the bowels of Hell itself.

On the other hand, not watching sounds republican, which is a form of liberalism, and therefore may lead to being the kind of snivelling little weenie who's spent the last two weeks telling all and sundry how you're totally not going to watch the wedding, 'cause that's the kind of rebel tiger you are.

Yes, indeed: they're prepared to risk being seized by the Royalty Squad and arrested under the Compulsory Watching Act of 2011.

Spare us. Recent events have confirmed it is - literally - braver to sing karaoke than be a republican right now.

So what to do? There's only one answer find a place where it's on but there's no need to actually watch it. And on a sunny public holiday too. It's tough, but on the other hand if I drink Bombardier, I reckon I can get up to 2.6 million Camerons.

Two Great Post on the Kung Fu Kristalnacht

First up, Woman on a Raft summarises the precise legal basis for the police's action - or, more specifically, the complete absence of any basis.

So, a citizen was deprived of his liberty without the ghost of the shadow of the memory of a legal basis, and dear old Shami and the rest of the usual suspects on the left have either suddenly remembered an urgent dental appointment or they're actually telling us that he must have done something, otherwise he wouldn't have been arrested.

Still, if nothing else, here's a great line from Jim Treacher:

Oh, we see how it is, England. A black man can’t have a hit song?

Greatest Leader Ever (And This Time We Mean It)

OK, I'll grant that it's kind of tough to find anything useful to say about The Dave, but this is kind of desperate.

Yes, indeed: The Dave has had a personality transplant and now he's turned out to be exactly the guy the MSM told us he was in the first place. I take it this is also by way of admitting that all their reporting back then was garbage, right? Now he's turned over a new leaf and everything will will be different from hereon in.... and just in time for the elections coming up in two weeks too! What are the odds, hey?

Karaoke Squad! Drop the Mike and Come Out With Your Hands Up

Police cutbacks: are they always a bad thing?

This is the important caveat that has to borne in mind when the police claim that electing Chief Constables would allow extreme extremists to be elected. There's always been a logical flaw in the idea of an extremist winning an election, but now they're just ramming home the point that for the police, the mainstream apparently flows through Hampstead.

Try this:

A Hampshire police spokesman last night said.... ‘If a victim believes that an alleged crime is racially aggravated, the police will treat it seriously. Investigations into this incident are continuing.’

First up: that's alleged victim, Comrade Officer. Second, in this era of 'me resources fell down the stairs, guv' policing, actual, real 'that'll need stitches' crimes are ignored all the time. They have chosen to pursue cases of malicious singing just as they have chosen not to pursue real crimes. Public servants who waste public money on fringe lunacy being subject to criticism is how it's meant to work. It's a feature not a bug.

On the plus side, that guy's just lucky it wasn't 'Rock the Kasbah'.

Left Goes Full Retard

Oops - looks like they forgot to dial down the crazy.

Never mind anything else, is Mr Llewellyn really the best person to be demanding people have proper 'Anglo-Saxon' names?

I guess we're just lucky it isn't anyone from UKIP appointing himself 'Non-Anglo Name Finder General' - otherwise we'd never hear the end of it. Which is kind of the point.

I'm a real conservative - unlike some David Camerons I could mention - so I all for free speech. What I object to is these guys being able to let their freak flag fly, then whip off the balaclava, put a suit on and have the MSM present them as disinterested seekers after truth and justice.

'Shut Up', Nick Clegg Explained.

Great though it always is to see Simon 'Straight Choice' Hughes coming out - as it were - for honest debate in politics, I'm thinking the Lib Dems latest meltdown might just point to a certain lack of self-awareness.

As I understand it, they're generously allowing folks to discuss AV, but only providing they discuss it in a way Lib Dems approve of.

Yep, they're all about The Democracy these guys. Not only is their position absurd from first principles, it's also a perfect metaphor for what's wrong with AV. We can discuss politics, but only providing we discuss it in approved ways, and we can vote, but only providing we have a voting system that guarantees the Lib Dems win seats no matter how many £9,000 fees they forget to mention before the last time they faced election.

Modern Life In A Nutshell

This story has everything!

The only thing I'm wondering is how they're going to find a white guy to blame it all on.

Quote of the Day

Andrew Breibart describes a common experience:

I just started to see trends in my personal experiences that ran so contrary to what the media narratives were. At first I was flummoxed by it and then I just started to listen to certain people on the radio who were more clear-thinking than the professors that I had in college.

I remember thinking when I was in college that a lot of these known Chomsky-like, verbose high lefty thinkers made absolutely no sense, but I thought that was my problem.

Liberalism's big ace in the hole is that they've managed to persuade people that if they can't make sense out of liberal ideology, that's just becuase their brain doesn't work properly. Equally, I'm thinking most conservatives have been through that one point in their life when they suddenly realise that, yes, liberalism is an incoherent mess of prejudice and degeneracy after all.

Actually, the whole interviews good - Breibart's big thing is that he realises that politics is just a subset of the wider culture war. We could do with a guy like him over here.

Satan's Representative on Earth Says Something Right

Still a scumbag though!

Hey, we're moving towards elected police chiefs - no thanks to 'sir' Al's Labour Party - so I guess we'll soon find out if the Great British Public want their money spent on real police officers, or on paying grandstanding berks in uniform to act like the Polly Toynbee of Solihull.

UPDATE:

Thinking further about this, consider the contrast between this guy and the Cop Bloggers. Police Officers informing the public about how a public service goes about its business have to metaphorically write wearing dark glasses and a false beard, meanwhile this guy can denounce members of the public while hiding behind his badge and no one bats an eyelid. Is that the perfect example of the Nu Police's demented worldview or what?

Arise, Sir Geoffrey!

Hey, they've got to do something to get those
Yorkshire voters back!

If nothing else, that plus this means that at least we can retire the myth that the Nu Tories are savvy political operators. Of course, the whole 'blowing the election' thing kind of hinted at that too.

Also debunked: the myth that liberalism is a kinder, gentler ideology than nasty, old conservatism. For all their supposed extremism, you'd struggle to find a more blatant example of class hatred from any of those old timey Thatcherites. We're supposed to admire Dave's Drones for their bold denunciations of the last two Nazis in Britain, meanwhile they want to introduce exit visas for the lower orders.

True, this particular outbreak of liberal fascism does owe something to the particular pathology of Cameron and his fellow aristoprats, but as far as the wider issue goes, it's noticable that even the sob sisters at the Guardian can only quibble about the specifics of who should fall foul of the Department for Holiday Control.

Well, Cameronism turns out to be a mix of liberalism and snobbery, who didn't see that coming? Apart from the MSM obviously. They're still busy trying to work out why Cameron refuses to drain the swamp. Why would he when he holds pretty much the same opinions they do anyway?

Goldilocks Goes Fascist

Seems like only last week liberal artistocrats were whining and yammering about The Diversity!

Hang on... it was last week.

But a week's a long time in politics the completely non-partisan pursuit of truth and beauty, and so now they're shocked - shocked! - anyone could accuse them of being obsessed with The Diversity!

So for those of you keeping score at home, the Tories are bad for diverting money from the arts to dealing with real issues, but Queen Liz blowing the budget on hiring m'learned friends to harass journalists is just good sense.

But anyway, it turns out that the artistocrats pay neither too much or too little attention to diversity, they pay just the right amount, and you better believe it or else.

All of which shows why 'Respectable Conservatism' is such a waste of time. Last week liberals were sliming conservatives for not buying into their jibber-jabber about diversity, now they're attacking conservatives for calling their sliming what it is. In other words, if conservatives refuse to let liberals smear them as really huge raycists, then that proves they're even more raycist. There's literally no right answer.

As long as conservatives accept the right of liberals to set the terms of debate, there's no way to win. As it is, even a snooty uber-squelch like Letts has managed a more full throated condemnation of these liberal parasites than almost anyone in the Tory Party has managed for years.

Stores Trashed By Mob, Still Looking Better Than Special Ed

You know you're a liberal if... you're more enraged by a lone banana being thrown on a football pitch than you are by hundreds of bottles being thrown at police officers.

Apparently, while BananaGate demands we look into the dark heart of British football, riots breaking out at a leftist demonstration are just one of them things. In fact, Libs are enraged that anyone could accuse them of supporting mayhem.

See, that's the thing right there: if liberals spent half as much energy condeming the rioters as they do condemning people who condemn their failure to condemn them their condemnations of the ConDems that condemn them wouldn't be so plain contempable.

As it is, they're so angry about the 'slur' that the Labour Party is thinking of convening a special committee to investigate the option of moving towards the possibity of potenial disciplary action for any party members found to have taken part in the violence. Meanwhile, the liberal side of the MSM has started featuring tear-jerking articles about leftists who were at the riot but not with the riot.

In other words, the people who endlessly jibber-jabber about hate speech and 'unconcious discrimination' are now arguing that mentioning their public expressions of support for thuggery is some kind of underhand trick.

It's not as if the thuggery is some kind of wacky byproduct of an otherwise good cause. Labour lost the election, but they still think they should be allowed to implement their agenda anyway. What was noticable about the demonstration was that it didn't seek to advance any coherent cause or point of view, merely to demand that everyone else continue to fork over the cash to Labour's payroll vote or else. If it wasn't any attempt to subvert the democratically-expressed will of the people by intimidation, what was it?