Testing The Hypothesis

The Dawk speaks:

[Dawkins] is also a member of the Brights, a group who out themselves as atheists. But he is not too keen on the name. “The word Brights gets a lot of ridicule. A lot of Americans think it’s arrogant, that it’s saying non-religious people are cleverer than religious people. On average they probably are, but you’re not allowed to say that.” He grins.

A-huh.

Libs 4 Torture

Harriet Harperson's latest attack on the state of holy matrimony has already been ripped apart by all and sundry, so I only have a few things to add:

1. In so far as this new legislation is based on the theory that there are 'male killings' and 'female killings', how does that mesh with the femiloon rantings about Amy Winehouse being cruelly deprived of the chance to serve as a Marine ? If these loonies are finally accepting that boys and girls are different, doesn't that mean some jobs are best done by one or the other ?
2. On the plus side, at last they've finally outed themselves. They want to make it easier to convict men and harder to convict women. No room for misquote there. It ain't about the equality, it's about misandry.
3. Also outing themselves: our watchdog MSM, all of whom swallowed the femiloon line that the law would favour women who kill abusive men, rather than the truth, which is that the law would favour women who kill men even where the only evidence of abuse is the killer's hardly disinterested say so.
   
4. If these laws go through as planned, a women will have less right to use force against a rapist than she does against her husband. A women facing a predator in a balaclava will only be permitted to use reasonable force to escape (and no weapons neither - that would be evidence of premeditation). Anything else would be 'taking the law into her own hands' - presumably unlike killing your husband long after any alleged abuse has occurred and merely because she claims to fear future violence.
   
5. In so far as the reforms to the law on provocation are based on the idea that adultery is no big thing, this says all you need to know about liberal marriages (hmmm... maybe someone should tell this bint) ?
   
6. How exactly does this mesh with the libs' last great assault on marriage? Will gays have to register which of them is the wife and which is in the wrong ?
   
7. At least there's one good thing: if violence is allowed where there has been a history of violence and the possibility of violence in the future, doesn't that pretty much cover most Jihadis? We don't even want to kill them, just connect them up to the National Grid.

Candid!

So much for all those leftists - both inside and out of the Tory Party - who claimed that they weren't anti-American, they just thought being a real ally required the British government to be reflexively anti-American a 'candid friend', instead of a slavish poodle like that poodley poodle Tony 'poodle' Blair. Compared to the abject grovelling that greeted the visitation by the Obamamessiah, Tony Blair was practically Bin Laden.

What about Obama's flirtation with protectionism? Or his apparent support for the great over-mountain invasion of Pakistan? Then there's the deranged racial politics (sample quote: Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.')'. How come our candid friends on the left didn't feel the need to raise any of these points?

The real test is this: ask any of the Obama fans to quote one of his speeches over here. Nada. This was never about actual policy. Nope, the Euro-left's love of Obama is based on one thing: they both hate America.

Another Reason Why Tories Suck

I can't be the only one reading this who's reminded of the Red Dwarf line about the Hitlers being great hosts, providing you keep him off politics.

Apart from anything else, can we at least do without all the lickspittle tributes to Benn's integrity? He's an avowed socialist whose family treats seats in Parliament like the family silver and uses the public purse like a piggy bank.

But anyway, for the limited purposes of the Tories' absurd argument, let's pretend that Benn is a shining example of personal integrity: how come Nick Griffin doesn't qualify for this special 'don't mention the ideology' get out clause? After all, he certainly speaks his mind, stands up for what he believes, blah, blah, blah.

Benn's dream was Marxist tyranny just as much as Griffin's was racist dictatorship. And not even nasty Nick can match Benn's record of over half a century spent vigorously agitating for every form of sadistic lunacy imaginable, providing only that it was leftist and/or anti-British.

By the 1950s Stalin's crimes were common knowledge, yet Benn was - and remains - an unrepentant advocate of Marxism. Nothing, not the Great Leap Forward, not the Killing Fields, not Kim Jong Il could dim Benn's enthusiasm for tyrants. Whether it was striking miners killing uncooperative taxi drivers or the liquidation of whole classes of people, Benn was a tireless advocate for evil.

No doubt as cheerleaders for murderous savagery go, Benn is one of the more eloquent and has a fancy accent, but no amount of polysyllabic wordplay can conceal the basic truth that here's a man who regards mass slaughter as a perfectly reasonable part of politics. To see such a man lauded on Centre Right is the perfect barometer of both the moral void and the snobbery at the heart of the Nu Tories.

The Fish Rots From The Head

You really can't spend too long slamming chavs, but let's not confuse symptoms with causes. Our cultural death spiral started on the nice side of town, as this piece of garbage clearly demonstrates. Key quote:

He was a distressed young man who loved his wife and was having a crisis. This was a cry for help that was ignored.

See, the rich are different! If it had been an painter and decorator shot while blazing away at passers-by, we wouldn't have had any of this.

For the record: a cry for help is where you shout 'Help!' and the various statutes dealing with shooting up the town do not include any references as to whether or not the sniper in question loves his wife.

It gets better:

She describes the police negotiator, believed to be operating from a flat roof nearby, as ‘bland’.

She adds: ‘The negotiation, in my opinion, was very controlled, very slow, very boring. Maybe they have a way of negotiating, but I felt there was no ability to see what had gone wrong that day.’

Yep, the negotiations were kind of dull.

You know what they needed? A comedian. Some one to warm the crowd up with a few jokes, then maybe a singer.

Who knew flogging over-priced footwear gave you so much insight into the psychology of gunmen ?

Oh - there's this too:

Mrs Winkworth, who owns the freehold to the Saunders’ property, was dismayed that her suggestions to rectify the situation were disregarded.

Here's a little thought experiment: what do you think would happen if you dialled up her office and claimed that orange wellingtons were next season's must have? Do you think she might ignore your suggestions?

Hey, I know the police are 'public servants' and all, but that doesn't mean they'll fetch you a drink, do your laundry or break sieges to order.

The old aristocracy get a lot of stick but at least they had a sense of obligation to the country that had given them so much. All you need to know about the collapse of British civilisation is contained in the long journey from young aristocrats setting off for the Somme to our new elite demanding that people like them not be held to the same laws as the little people.

EU: Remember That Stuff We Don't Do ? We're Stopping Doing It

The EU has finally realised that one way to counteract food price inflation is to stop throwing away perfectly edible fruit on aesthetic grounds.

Nothing passes these guys by.

The only thing is, as TW points out, the EU has spent years denying that it ever did that. Indeed, the quest for the perfect banana has always been cited as the epitome of a 'right-wing myth'. Now suddenly we're supposed to praise them for not doing something stupid that they always claimed they never did anyway? How does that work exactly?

Dhimmis D'Jour: Supporting of the Troops Edition

Gosh, who can this mysterious 'minority group' be? I'd take all this whining about Islamophobia more seriously if the vast majoirty of peaceful bombers Muslims didn't react like Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist' every time someone showed support for their fellow countrymen rather than head chopping loons.

One Civil Right Liberty Will Never Support

Gotcha Liberals! These people keep giving us long, patronising lectures about how of course they think citizens should have the right to self-defence. Really? Can anyone imagine the Guardian running a similar nudging & winking article celebrating the government's sleazy denial of any other civil rights? How about an article titled 'Don't Vacuum That Baby's Brains Out' ?

Indeed, the article is the perfect exemplar of the liberal's deranged attitude to self-defence:

Many people hoping for an unrestricted green light to beat up or shoot their burglars or robbers, even unto death, will be disappointed.

Yep that's it. Liberals genuinely believe that people who smash their way into an occupied house at 4 AM are all loveable rogues called 'Lefty' but householders are psychopaths just waiting for the chance to torture people to death. From this bonkers worldview all else follows.

If you truly believe that the real danger with legalising self-defence is that it will allow respectable, middle-aged businessmen to persecute 21 year old smackheads then, yes, the current laws make perfect sense. Hence why Berlins clearly regards the following as a Good Thing:

Nor would the new law help anyone who, warned of a possible break-in, lies in wait and takes forceful action against the burglar. Such conduct has been premeditated. To avoid being prosecuted, it would have to be an instinctive reaction.

Leaving aside the question of just how someone would know in advance they were due to be burgled - a ludicrous red herring if ever there was one - the bottom line is that, by the left's own description, citizens can defend themselves, but only if they're completely unprepared. This is just the legal equivalent of the old line that anyone can eat at the Ritz. Never mind the problems of a family man confronted with a burglar, what are the prospects for a petite twenty-something blonde confronted with an 18 stone rapist with a knife?

The central question hidden in all this is what is the nature of crime? Liberals think crime is just one of those things, and criminality is just another lifestyle choice. There's no outrage there, no sense that criminality eats away at the very basis of human society.

This is the real problem with the whole concept of 'reasonable force'. As DT points out, a smackhead breaking down your door at 4 AM is not a 'reasonable' situation. Suggesting that the courts should consider how householders defend themselves and their families against home intruders in the same way, and using the same criteria, as they consider the fairness of contracts is absurd. Criminals are not part of society, they have voluntarily chosen to place themselves outside the normal restraints of civilisation. The normal assumptions of good faith don't apply. All proponents of self-defence really want is the right to treat them as what they are.

Image Vs Reality

Image

Reality

Hooray for Multiculturalism!

Let's reach out and embrace African culture.

Late-Term Abortion

Hey, it's a woman's right to choose, even if she's a little slow off the mark.

She'd Still Be Alive If She'd Stuck To The Top Shelf Stuff

When neo-prohibitionism meets snobbery, absurdity often results.

MONA Mob

Re: the Men of No Appearance stiking again, is there any connection between between a mob of thugs being confident enough to attack a pair of police officers in broad daylight, and police management so weak and PC that they can't even call a mob what it is?

You Know What We Need More of Round Here ?

Some of this, plus a a bit of this.

Enriched Enrichment

Ross notices a totally amazing series of coincidences.

Clearly, they're stealing the money the British just won't steal. But hey - at least they didn't kill anyone. Then again, neither did Courtney Bryan the first two times, but practice makes perfect. All of which means we have another example of the Climbié Effect whereby even the most totalitarian liberals turn into minarchists just as soon as they have to deal with a dysfunctional effnick family.

The DLF: Our Time Has Come

Regular readers will know that one of my dearest ambitions is to become a victim, and now it seems my dream is coming true. The trouble is it seems like a 'monkey's paw' deal. Victimhood is within my grasp but, staggeringly enough, my fellow passengers on the gravy train all turn out to be loonies.

In the comments to this post, JulieM correctly notes the Telegraph's spectacular double entendres, but actual comedy can't compete with this level of sheer weirdness.

As the WALL-E controversy hit the headlines, the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (Naafa) was last week holding its annual convention in Los Angeles, a celebration of so-called "flabulous figures", seminars on fat discrimination, a fat fashion show, podgy pool parties and entertainment from weighty singing group The Fatimas.

OK, so that's merely eccentric, but it soon tips over into full-on hustling:

Fighters for fat rights are calling for legislation to ban weight discrimination in the workplace, denouncing airlines that demand they buy two seats and car manufacturers whose seat belts are too small.

Yes, it's a real mystery why it's so hard to find a seatbelt with real freedom of movement, although not as much of a mystery as why employers are reluctant to employ folks who are just enraged! by having to buy two tickets just because they occupy two seats.

They are also battling doctors who won't treat patients who refuse to lose weight and companies that won't insure them.

Now is that just the perfect summation of modern life or what ? Being a bloater brings health risks, so clearly the answer is to sue your doctor.

Actually, this seems to be a common theme:

Miss Wann (41 years in age and 20 stones in weight) is America's best known fighter for fat rights. She developed her motto - "free your ass and your heart and mind will follow" - and a magazine called "Fat!So?" after being turned down for health insurance because she was "morbidly obese".

Yep, she gets told she's on Guest List for intensive care, so she starts a magazine to protest against people warning her that she's going to suffer hideous health problems.

You just know that in a parallel world she's suing her doctor for not warning her about her health problems, right ?

Anyway, none of that matters. In a completely unpredictable move, my fellow sumos are claiming that calling fat people fat is just like The Racism!

Miss Wann said the film company would never have considered stereotyping black people "dancing a jig" in the way they have done so with fat people.

She added: "Pixar should be out of business for portraying this level of prejudicial bigotry-mongering. These are 19th-century hatreds repackaged in modern animation. It's amazing."

Haven't blacks suffered enough without being conscripted by every goofy victim group out there ? Besides, the tubby whiners could probably do with some healthy, outdoor exercise like picking cotton.

I don't want to be pushed up against a thin passenger sitting next to me any more than they wants to be pushed up against me," she said. "But the seats keep getting smaller. I don't need all of the chairs in coach to be available to fatties in a comfortable way but I do think fat people have the right to interstate and international transportation just like everyone else."

Yes, and they have the right to pay for it too.

This next bits even weirder:

Fatima Parker, UK spokesperson for the International Size Acceptance Association..

No, not just that.

Fatima Parker, UK spokesperson for the International Size Acceptance Association says the government ought to campaign against "anti-fat" attitudes as much as obesity.

"Fat discrimination is even worse in this country than in the US because you see more big people and hear their voices over there," she explains.

This is certainly true.

"Fat people here are constantly told that we are failures: as people, as parents, as role models."

Ms Parker's argument is that overweight people are less likely to become morbidly obese, if they are allowed to feel comfortable about their bodies. She believes derogatory language and stereotypes about fat people as greedy will only make them eat more.

Yes, the only way to discourage bad behaviour is to accept it. It works so well everywhere else.

Hmmmmm.... doesn't that mean the way to discourage people from abusing the gravitationally-challenged is to encourage them to 'feel comfortable' about screaming abuse at the lardy ?

"On TV shows such as You Are What You Eat and The Biggest Loser, we are made out to be disgusting and less than human - called cows and whales.

It's hardly going to make me go and eat carrots and run around the garden.

"I would rather have cancer or diabetes than serious depression about how I look."

And thus was crushed the stereotype of human zepplins as slow-witted hysterics.

But that really is the crux of the argument. Leaving aside the more hysterical health nazis, no one disputes the right of these people to stage dive into the dessert trolley. It's just that freedom doesn't usually mean forcing over airlines to give free seats away, and banning people from calling things what they are. What these people really want is the right to live an insane lifestyle without consequences.

Actually, my real problem with it all is this: these people consume way too much food and so they claim victimhood. What about those of us who got fat through consuming non-solid energy sources ? How come no one ever takes out an onion for us persecuted drunks ?

Maybe that could be my breakthrough into victimhood: the Drunk Liberation Front. It's an idea who's time has come.

Been There, Done That

Laban wonders whether the Tory policy of compulsory sentences for 'knife crime' - whatever that actually means - would lead to police and CPS hassling easy targets while the real maniacs slide (see 'gun crime' for further details).

Actually, I think Laban is dead wrong. These people don't need any encouragement to do that, Operation Harass The Law-Abiding is already in progress, check out this and this for example.

Bent Coppers

Read this and tell me we don't need an Integrity in Public Office Act.

If you pulled a stunt like this with your tax return, Revenue & Customs would go for a death sentence.

Intergalactic Racism

This is what happens when you give idiots the right to determine the bounds of acceptable public discourse.

Shocka! New Immigration Rules A Farce

Liberals just won't stop. Turns out the tough (not really) new immigration rules have a honking great loophole:

Tens of thousands of migrants will be offered 'fast-track' British passports every year in return for doing voluntary work.

The foreign nationals will be allowed to slash up to two years off the time it takes to win citizenship, in return for completing community work, charity fundraising, working as a school governor or running a children's sports team.

So do a bit of work for the Mohammed Siddiq Khan Travel Scholarship Fund and get fast-tracked for a passport.

Need you ask what the motivation is ?

It will also say that every migrant settling in Britain should apply for citizenship rather than keeping his or her own existing nationality.

The move is likely to increase the number of Labour voters by 250,000 every year.

Actually, I might have made a little change to that quote, but only a little one. Yep, the government really has decided to dissolve the people, and elect a new population.