Saturday, December 30, 2006

Tony Blair in 'Staying with Friends' scandal,,2-2522457,00.html

Unbelievable. If the media in this country could get any more forensically trivial, it would pop out of existence. The scandal brewing in the teeny tiny minds of our newspaper editors right now boils down to: Tony Blair is staying with some friends for the holidays.

Oh My God! Is there no disgusting foulness that this man will not commit? Staying over with friends at the holidays? Will he be drinking at the pub as well? Maybe have a bit of a sing-song? The PUBLIC MUST BE TOLD!

I am feeling rather faint. I may have to go lie down in a darkened room for a while till my head clears.

Knowing what you want

"Even so, the US does have the bad habit of being fickle with its friends in the Middle East. Many people in the March 14 bloc likewise are worried the US will abandon them to Hezbollah, the Iranians, and the Baath. Anti-American elements in March 14 will tell you that the reason they don’t trust America is not because they hate the US, but because Americans are unreliable allies who care only about themselves and not about Lebanon."

I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt on many issues, because the historical record is replete with their consistent championing of the right people in the right places at the right time. However, my own (vastly less knowledgeable) take on the middle east is very much consistent with Michael Tottens. I'm not too sure how many US diplomats or politicians have ever bothered to find out what the historical dynamics are in the ME, and how normal in many respects the politics are there if you take the time to find out who really wants what. Unfortunately, you have many many people like ex-US President Carter, who went straight from deep ignorance to championing one party (out of many thousands of parties) in the complex tableaux of ME politics. This naivety and arbitrariness tends to make the many rational players in the ME despair of getting the US to make long-term commitments to the right people and the right ideas in the ME.

Saying that, even the British Empire, with many individuals with vastly more knowledge of the actual makeup and history of the ME, had a difficult time finding responsible and far-sighted organisations and leaders to ally to. They were also sold some serious lines, like the pan-Arab imperialist dreams of Hussein-Ibn-Ali, sharif of Mecca and his three sons Ali, Abdullah and Faisal in the early 2oth century. Vast territories were pretty much awarded to them on the basis of Arabist claims which turned out to be wholly bogus. But at least the British knew the major players, and quite often what their agendas were. I get the strong impression that many US officials, when confronted by the complexity and depth of ME affairs just can't be bothered to try to get a handle on why todays players are doing what they are doing. And the fact that many groups in the ME have amazingly bold and ambitious plans for themselves which are often woefully unrealistic adds yet another layer of instability to what is already a stressfully eclectic mix.

At various times, the US has championed nationalists against communists, Shahs against reformers, reformers against tribal leaders, pan-Arabists against nationalists and vice versa. Without having some view of what they eventually want (perhaps stable nations which evenly represent the patchwork makeup of the population?), the US is left with worthy but hollow invocations of things like democracy and freedom. The ME has always been a place of empires, where strong men with armies carved for themselves a new order over the bodies of whoever was silly enough to get in the way. The transition from that state of mind to one where men are content to live within their nations borders, and form a happy coalition of mutual aid and practical progress is under way, but is still some way off. In that respect (Japan, Germany, S Korea) the US has a very good track record of sticking with the transitional program. But the commitment to that process in Iraq (and Lebanon and Israel etc) must be steely and cognisant of the difficulty of breaking habits thousands of years in the making. An understanding of historical shifts and trends would be handy, and the teaching of the basics of ME history should become a part of US education.

Simply pursuing US interests in the most economic of senses is simply not enough. The imperialist habits of thought that permeate ME politics must be replaced by more humble and practical ones.

The even-handed New York Times

Many of the right of centre blogs from the US have brought to their readers attention the highly pro-Palestinian anti-Israel bias of the New York Times. In this article, on a website called Occupation a man called Chris Hedges, who was the bureau chief of the NY Times in Jerusalem, runs down through all the alleged atrocities perpetrated against the Palis.

Two things caught my eye:

'Palestinians in Gaza live encased in a squalid, overcrowded ghetto, surrounded by the Israeli military and a massive electric fence, unable to leave or enter the strip and under daily assault.'

'Faced with a demographic timebomb, knowing that by 2020 Jews will make up only 40 to 46 percent of the overall population of Israel, the architects of transfer, who once held the equivalent status in Israeli society of the Ku Klux Klan, have wormed their way into positions of power in the Israeli government.'

Why are the Palestinians having so many children? Oh right, I remember; islame is the fastest growing religion on the planet, and we have to keep it that way. And the smartest response to living all bunched up in little squatter camps is to keep those babies coming.

I'm not sure what makes me angriest about this whole setup- that a week after the partition of Israel was declared the Palestinians tried to annihilate the Jewish population of Palestine, but having failed to do so then spent the next 58 years presenting themselves as widdly weakly victims of the great oppressor Zionists; or that idiots like Chris Hedges can't identify cause and effect. Over and over and over again the Palestinians have shown their intense collective desire to murder all the Jews and throw their bodies into the Med, and over and over and over again their stooges such as Hedges insist that its the Jews who are intent on ethnic cleansing, murder and societal dismemberment. I often wonder what Hedges views would be if the Palestinians had won the war of 1948, and dispatched the Jews with vigor and stolen all their legal property? '...Its ok because they were NATIVE peoples, and NATIVE peoples can murder and steal and ethnically cleanse to their hearts content, because they are not, nor ever will be, imperialist intruders.'

Anyway, I think at least one issue is cleared up- and thats why the New York Times could never quite see things through Israeli eyes.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Press freedoms new definition

According to Reporters without Frontiers, as long as you have a press pass, you can do pretty much whatever you like. You can spy for the enemy, you can consort with the enemy to provide his propaganda, you can provide exactly the kind of work that will boost the enemies propaganda message: and if anybody interferes with you, they are an evil dictatorship trying to suppress press freedom!

"Deterioration in the United States and Japan, with France also slipping

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.
Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year."

First of all, lets take the three star turns given as evidence of foul US malpractice. Two seconds
googling found me this on a website touting for his release-

"Josh Wolf is an independent journalist and blogger who was jailed on August 1 when he refused to testify or turn over unpublished video out-takes to a federal grand jury investigating a July, 2005 anti-G8 demonstration. Josh has never been convicted of a crime. He is being held on civil contempt in an effort to coerce him to testify and turn over his unpublished material to a federal grand jury. Josh was released on bail September 1st but was ordered to return to prison on September 22nd pending a hearing before the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

So, reasonable folk of the world, here is a man who has in his possession video of crimes being committed which he will not give to the authorities because presumably he supports the causes in whose name the crimes were committed. His choice. But lets face it, being held in jail on contempt of court is universes away from the gun-toting free-for-all that many journos in many countries face. A martyr he is not. Whether or not there were violent crimes on the tapes, his civic duty is to allow the relevant prosecutors the chance to judge whether there are cases to be answered. The normal reason for protecting a source is that to reveal their identity would compromise their personal life to a very great extent, despite their having acted for the greater public good. Rabid anti-capitalist protestors assaulting and in one case in Italy murdering policemen are not acting in the public good by any reasonable judgement.

Sami Al-Hajj

According to a fulsome Wikipedia entry, the following charges have been levelled againt Al-Hajj.

1. The detainee worked as an executive secretary for Abdul Al-Latif Al-Imran, general manager for the Union Beverage Company (UBC). The Union Beverage Company has been associated with Bosnian/Chechen mujahid.
2. The detainee traveled to Azerbaijan at least eight times to courier money to the Al-Haramayn non-governmental organization (NGO) on behalf of his boss, Abd Al-Latif Omran.
Al-Haramayn has been designated under Executive Order 13224 as an organization that has provided support to terrorist organizations.
3. During the winter of 1997, the detainee delivered $7,000 USD to Al-Haramayn.
4. During the winter of 1998, the detainee visited Al-Haramayn’s summer camp, and delivered $13,000 USD to Al-Haramayn.
4. During November 1999, the detainee delivered $12,000 USD to Munir Al-Barguoni for a new factory in Azerbaijan; he also delivered $100,000 USD to Jamal, the Director of Al-Haramayn.
5. The detainee was detained in Azerbaijan for the transport of $220,000 USD. The money was destined for Chechen rebels and not for humanitarian support as the detainee was told....

Theres quite a bit more if you really care!

When did the guy have time to take photos, for goodness sake? To portray this guy like he's joe schmo beat reporter hoiked off to Guantanamo because he's a darky is about as meretricious as you can get.

Bilal Hussein

Quoting from a very biased Wikipedia entry (biased towards Hussein):

"The military said that Hussein was found with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida forces in Iraq.[1] According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces."[1] Gardner continued, "The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."[1]"

I know from my own long-tracking of this story that months before Bilal Hussein was captured with a known Al Qaeda in Iraq operative, a number of blogs in the US, particularly Little Green Footballs, had brought to the attention of the US military the extraordinary nature of the pictures provided to AP by Mr Hussein. Given the extraordinary barbarity of AQII, the fact that Mr Hussein was able to photograph them with faces uncovered at the precise moment they were attacking US positions meant he had a level of access granted to none but full associate members of the organisation. A number of the attacks shown in his pictures were demonstrably staged (ie they didn't involve any coalition forces). Given the access Mr Hussein had to REAL attacks, photographing faked ones would immediately call into question his role. The fact is, a number of real journalists tried to get pictures like the ones Mr Hussein seemed to get hold of so easily, and died in terrible gruesome circumstances as a result.

US Ranking on the Press Freedom Index 2006: 54 (along with Tonga and Croatia)

'Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.”' And the concrete, day-to-day impact on working US journalists of this deterioration was? Er, nothing. George W. Bush grumped away to himself, we presume. You'll notice that this very serious accusation, that a sitting US president has threatened working journos who disagree with his policies is not backed up by even a single piece of evidence. Convinced me!

'The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.' To the unobservant eye, this statement closely following on from the previous statement would indicate some Bush administration control over these federal courts. As those with even the merest smidgin of knowledge about the US government could tell you, the three branches are entirely separate: judicial from legislative, legislative from executive and executive from judicial. Two seconds of rumination would reveal why there is no absolute right for journalists to refuse to reveal their sources- when there is an overriding public interest that criminals or terrorists be apprehended for instance. But don't let those silly little reality-based things intrude...

America-hatred (and its little brother Bush-hatred) is turning organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU and Reporters without Frontiers from genuine monitors and tellers of painful truths into cynical purveryors of lefty ritual positions. Instead of simply reporting what the facts tell them, the urgent need to turn America into the barbaric fascist dominator it patently isn't over-rides and distorts. Who this helps, I can't say. Who it hurts is everybody who used to pay attention to the often afwul truths these organisations presented us with.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

And heres why...

Minutes after my last post, I casually browsed this up from Little Green Footballs. Watch the video. Afghanistan has gone from being a relatively progressive, if extremely poor little country forty years ago, to something socially resembling Saudi Arabia in the seventh century. To the vast detriment of 50% of the population. Can you guess which half?

If somebody out there can convincingly argue that that is progress, please feel free to explain that to us 6.5 billion people who aren't muslims...

Why can't I dislike islam?

A few months back, a neo-fascist BNP leader called Nick Griffin was acqitted of Incitement to Racial Hatred. The court case originated from secret filming '...on 19 January 2004, in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith". ( The first time I read about this case, I was highly confused. Is hating islam the same as hating muslims? Could a Briton go to jail for saying islam is wicked and vicious?

In my opinion, there is very little creditable in islam, for the following reason. I believe religions encapsulate the character and core motivations of their founders. That character and those motivations are then institutionalised and propagated. Sadly, mohammed was not a nice guy. He emerges from the koran as spiteful, grudge-holding, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, extremely parochial and domineering. He did not have a big soul.

islam is like mohammed. Its based on his life, his teachings, on him. Although there are lots of flowery poetic bits in the koran that sound like the mercy and big-heartedness of Judaism and Christianity, they are completely undermined in my view by the actual character of mohammed. Where his character is on display, its not pretty. Getting revenge on those he deemed to have humiliated him was a big part of his motivation. In my view, thats not someone to base a major religion on. But hey, that just me and my opinion.

Could I potentially go to jail for that? In Britain? It would be an overstatement to say I hate islam. I deeply dislike it and the religious supremicism it seems to inevitably spawn, but I don't hate it. But if I did, would that be a crime? Not in a free country.

Separation of Church and State,20867,20977254-2702,00.html

"Lina Joy was once a Muslim but has converted to Christianity. She didn't do so to make any broad point or to lead any social movement. It was entirely a private decision. But in Malaysia the state takes official notice of your race and religion.
Lina Joy tried to get herself deregistered as a Muslim and reregistered as a Christian. As a Muslim she is not allowed to marry a Christian man and any children she has must be brought up as Muslims.
When the state authorities refused to accept her conversion she appealed to the courts on the basis of Article 11 of the Malaysian constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.
The case, in which judgment could be given at any time, has polarised Malaysia. Many Muslims believe apostasy - changing your religion - is not only a sin but should be punishable by death."

Malaysia is supposed to be one of the laid-back tolerant muslim countries. 'Deregistered as a Muslim and reregistered as a Christian'? Huh? Ok, let me get this right... if an English County Council want to put up a Nativity scene in the lobby of their headquarters, that is a disastrous imposition on the poor ickle muslim population, and must be destroyed and never repeated. But if a Malaysian woman wants to worship Christ in her home, and bring up her children to worship Christ, the entire weight of the Malaysian state will get in her way?

Why do I pick up the newspaper every day to read a new denunciation of this country and its oppressions, when the worlds conditions self-evidently proclaim the opposite case?

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Making logical arguments

Spotted this link on Little Green Footballs.

These are the comments and learned arguments of Fawaz Gerges. Fawaz A. Gerges earned an M.Sci., London School of Economics and a D.Phil., Oxford University. He holds the Christian A. Johnson Chair in International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies.

“Look, you have tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed. You have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed. Look at the history of colonialism. ‘How can the oppressed people,’ they say, ‘Jews, turn around and do injustice to the Palestinians?’ Why the Palestinians have to pay for the crimes committed by Europeans, after all?”

I have heard the above 'arguments' hundreds, if not thousands of times. Hearing this garbage from a professor though is astounding.

"... tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed." Possibly true, although the circumstances of those deaths would need to be examined to work out whether they could be classified reasonably as 'victims' (after all, we are comparing the Palestinians to Jewish holocaust victims here). Thousands died during wars with Israel, which is not 'oppressive', its war. And remember who the aggressors were in ALL of those wars. A Palestinian bloke with a Lee Enfield running at an Israeli machine gun nest is NOT the same as a Jew being transshipped by cattle car to an industrial scale killing factory.

"You have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed." By Israelis? Does this guy have an IQ in single digits? Not to mention the fact that 80-90% of all the Iraqis who have died have died at the hands of other Iraqis.

"Look at the history of colonialism." Eh? Where the **** are you off to? Israeli colonialism? When was that?? Or are you talking about the French empire or the Roman empire or the Aztec empire? Or most pertinently, the Ottoman empire? That one which killed the 1.5 million Christian Armenians? Yes, empires ARE terrible.

"‘How can the oppressed people,' they say, ‘Jews, turn around and do injustice to the Palestinians?'" Or, how can the Arab Palestinians ever lose a war? We are Arabs, and muslims, and you crappy Christians and Jews aren't allowed to win wars against us!!! We insist you return the fruits of your victory to us immediately!

"Why the Palestinians have to pay for the crimes committed by Europeans, after all?" So let me get this right: Israel was created by Germany to pay back the Jews for murdering six million of them? Or is that, created by 'Europe'? Does this guy know ANY history of the middle east AT ALL? Or has he just been sitting around the Student Union talking to all the other dimwit lefty 'can't be bothered to read history books cause they're all written by DWEMs anyway' layabouts?

OH MY GOD!!!! If thats the level of learning and erudition we can expect from a D.Phil from Oxford Uni, what are the Polytechnic/New Uni products going to be like?

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Compare and contrast,0,2351518.story?coll=la-home-commentary

'On the day that my half-sister visited me, my head was reeling from what happened to 6 million Jews in Germany, Holland, France and Eastern Europe. I learned that innocent men, women and children were separated from each other. Stars pinned to their shoulders, transported by train to camps, they were gassed for no other reason than for being Jewish. I saw pictures of masses of skeletons, even of kids. I heard horrifying accounts of some of the people who had survived the terror of Auschwitz and Sobibor. I told my half-sister all this and showed her the pictures in my history book. What she said was as awful as the information in my book. With great conviction, my half-sister cried: "It's a lie! Jews have a way of blinding people. They were not killed, gassed or massacred. But I pray to Allah that one day all the Jews in the world will be destroyed."'

'Mr Bari, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, criticised the Government for "unfairly targeting" Muslims, and said that it was undermining their status as "equal citizens".
He warned that blaming extremism on "a small, largely deprived community" leads to a "deterioration of community cohesion and fuels xenophobia".
In a presentation to MPs, Mr Bari went so far as to ask: "What is the degree of xenophobia that tipped Germany in the 1930s towards a murderous ethnic and cultural racism?"'

...which didn't result in the holocaust because it didn't happen. My head is starting to hurt.

Darfur, Iranian nukes, massive subversion of western democracies

Forget about those things in the title of this post. They are mere trivia. The worlds media have much larger fish to fry.

'The White House was at the centre of another late-disclosure controversy yesterday after complaints that it had failed to announce that the First Lady, Laura Bush, had a skin cancer tumour removed from her right shin more than five weeks ago.
The affair only came to light when Mrs Bush was noticed with a bandage below her right knee, and a spokesman confirmed on Monday evening that she had the excision. The cancer in question was a squamous cell carcinoma, the second most common form of skin cancer, the First Lady's press secretary said yesterday. The tumour was the size of a small coin.
Tony Snow, the President's spokesman, played down the incident , telling reporters that Mrs Bush was not an elected official, but "perhaps if there's something more major, this would be discussed".'

This is on a par with Watergate, obviously. Any fool with a press pass and Pulitzer could tell you that...

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Todays un-PC joke

Whats worse than a Palestinian civil war?

A Palestinian truce.

Priorities, priorities,,2089-2508262,00.html

What do you do when your country has been devastated by a huge wave, and people from the other side of the planet give you lots of money to rebuild?

That would depend on whether you live in a country with a decent, useful religion, or whether you are saddled with a misogynistic war-mongering one.

After all, if you've just had your house and 95% of your family washed out to sea, your home town looks like a car park and you only have one neighbor left in your neighborhood, what you really need is some 18 year old twat hectoring you about not wearing a headscarf.

I wake up each morning and thank God this is not a muslim country. And will never be one.

Libertys light is dwindling

For a few years back in the early 21st century, it looked like Russia might join up with the civilised world, leave behind some of its old pathologies and strike out in the direction of good governance, western-style institutions and a respect for law.

All of those whisps of hope have now disappeared. Political dissent in Russia is being suppressed. Putin is putting a stranglehold on the gas and oil assets that were privatised and is gradually re-nationalising them. Russia has coerced more than half of all the countries it supplies with gas into signing new unfavourable contracts, or risk being cut off. The FSB is pretty much a criminal enterprise whose nationalistic urges are often combined with their aquisitive ones, to the great detriment of many people in the old soviet republics. The bombings in European Russia that led to the second Chechen war were very likely the work of the FSB. Many hundreds of ordinary Russians died in those explosions so the Putin could launch his dirty little war. Via Belarus, Russia is supplying Iran with very late model anti-aircraft missiles which will almost certainly come into play when the US or Israel destroy Irans nuclear capability.

Putin seems to think he can re-create the Soviet Union, but with no sustaining ideology and an economy that relies on arms and raw materials and virtually nothing else. As I have pointed out to numerous people on lots of occasions, becoming a super-power requires more than 2,500 nuclear weapons and a dedicated coterie of criminals. Lets not forget why the Soviet Union died- people stopped believing in the sustaining communist claptrap, and the Russian economy virtually stopped producing things other than tanks, aircraft and missiles. What has Putin done to resolve either of those two issues?

Russia seems from here to be a large mafia-type operation looking for opportunities to cause trouble and get rich quick. Is there any sign that ordinary Russians would or could do anything about the desparate state of their polity? None that I can detect.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Police and politicians determinedly looking the wrong way

"Jews attacked 4 times more than Muslims, police say"

This makes me so angry the next time I get accused of being islamaphobic I'm gonna punch some bastards lights out. Thats called irony, by the way.... regular readers of this blog will be aware that I consider islamaphobia a straw man. Last year, the EU compiled a report on anti-semitic attacks in Europe, which they then suppressed and lied to everybody about. The reason for their anxiety about their own research was that young muslim men accounted for most of the anti-semitic attacks- not the presumed neo-nazi white boys they were hoping for at all.

The trouble is, the Jews of England, and probably many other parts of Europe, do not use the megaphone to trumpet these events like the muslims do. So although islamaphobia is 98% bullshit, there are just enough anti-muslim crimes to keep the whole sorry show on the road. And my how they whinge!

But for those of us in the fact-based portion of society need to concentrate very hard on what this tells us about the future. Huge birth rate in the muslim community= generations of jew-hating, west-hating, christian-hating muslim boys who absolutely do not subscribe to any multi-culti happy-clappy version of Britain, and will kick the shit out of a heeb on any given day.
"Rabbi Alex Chapper, 33, was the victim of a faith-related hate crime in July 2005. He was returning from a synagogue in Ilford, East London, with three Jewish friends after conducting a service. Seven Asian teenagers followed them down the road shouting "Yehudi," which means Jew in Arabic and Urdu. One of them shouted, "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you," before punching Mr. Chapper in the face and hitting one of his friends over the head with a bottle. "

The trailing edge party

The Conservatives policy wonks have generated yet another superb 'trailing edge' policy. You can imagine them jumping up and down with glee in their space-age offices, surrounded by marketing idiots. All human life in this fetid little world is seen through the prism of party politics.

"The invasion of Iraq is a failed policy that has made the UK more likely to be a terrorist target, says a think-tank's report for the Conservative Party. The National and International Security Policy Group will warn against the UK being the "mute partner" of the US."

So basically, a very tired reiteration of the same canards launched against the Blair government since mid-2003. It has that air of 'trendy vicar' about it, which believes that saying 'groovy' and 'nifty' and 'neato' things will make them popular with the young folk. How unutterably crap. Even from the point of view of party politics in Britain, I can't see this working. How many people believe that the Conservative PARTY as opposed to the tiny cabal surrounding Dave C. are opposed to the war? I imagine it hovers around the 0% mark.

But out in the big wide world where events are transforming the middle east, this policy seems like a frail whispy cloud, which will evaporate at the first sign of sun. Is the Dave C. crew really suggesting that we move from our current principled position of support for the only benign superpower ever in its quest to free up the people of the middle east from despots, murderers and ideological zealots so they can enjoy the fruits of prosperity which good governance brings? A move taken so the Conservative Party can put in its little campaign leaflets for the next election '...and we opposed tony blairs evil foreign war.' That is cynicism and stupidity of the highest order.

For some time I have understood that beneath the carapace of bouncy optimism and breezy hail-fellow-well-metness, Dave C. is an empty husk. He does not believe in Britain, he does not believe in England, and he represents nothing but a desire to occupy Tony Blairs chair. If it came to a straight fight between his nullity and Tony Blairs principled stances, the latter would get my vote every time.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Abused to death

"UN body to probe abuses in Darfur"

Abuses? I guess you could describe mass-murder, rape-as-policy, and very large scale ethnic cleansing as 'abuses'. You might be tempted to if it was your responsibility to stop said murder, rape etc. and you had done absolutely bugger all. In a hilarious piece of misdirection, Kofi Annan spent his last few hours in post haranguing the US for being such a go-it-alone rogue state. He sadly ran out of time, so his words of condemnation for Sudan in their racist and incoherent war on their own population (Arab vs Black African) never got an airing.

Answer me this: how many Darfurian lives will this probe save? If the probe finds out anything we don't know (EXTREMELY UNLIKELY), what will the UN do? Ask the African Union to send another 35 badly armed blokes in a rickety bedford 2-ton? Fantastic. Lets face it. The UN is not fit for purpose. In Lebanon it facilitates the re-arming of Hezbollah. In Iraq it supports the insurgents sponsors. In Sudan it does absolutely nothing that might stop the massacring.

Its time to disband the UN. The League of Nations was dissolved when it did zilch to stop the rise of fascism in Europe. What will be the final blow for the hectoring tyrants club that is the UN?

And the BBC shall judge them from on high...

Forget about the judgement of God, or even the judgement of history, the BBC have got there first.

"General Augusto Pinochet led Chile's armed forces in a dramatic coup against Salvador Allende's democratically elected Marxist government. The violence of the uprising and the oppression that followed shook the world."

Hmmm. Shook the world? Slightly emotive language perhaps?

"In September 1973, thousands of so-called subversives were rounded up in Santiago's national football stadium. Some of them were executed."

So-called subversives? The BBC knows better? Only some of them were executed? How many?10? 15? I can understand why the whole world shook... in a century where millions were murdered and tens of millions died in wars across the globe, this certainly is the most grievous crime of all...

"General Pinochet emerged from behind his dark glasses to lead the country. Before long, parliament was suspended and elections were banned."

He sounds like a Bond villain. Who suspended parliament. What a horrific man.

"As political opposition was crushed, riots, arrests and torture became commonplace. Thousands of people disappeared. Throughout, General Pinochet claimed he was saving Chile from communism."

Less than 3,000, but who's counting? Not the BBC, thats for sure. "...Pinochet claimed he was saving Chile from communism." What does the BBC think he was doing then? Murdering thousands of his own people for fun? A voice in his head told him to do it? Implicit in this tone of disbelief is the utter conviction that nobody on this planet needs 'saving from communism'. To the BBC, that is an oxymoron.

"Two months later, Allende appointed Pinochet commander-in-chief, believing he could rely on him. But in September, Pinochet told Allende to resign or face military action."

Its a heart-wrending tale of betrayal of the beautiful martyr by the stumpy, fascistic military cretin. We know.

"Two days later Pinochet was named president of a ruling junta. Civil rights were suspended, Marxist political parties outlawed, the power of unions reduced, and heavy censorship introduced. Many intellectuals went abroad."

And here is the heart of our morality tale. All the evils of the world revealed before our stupified gaze: no civil rights, no marxism, no trade unions, no freedom to write long marxist paeans, and the best and greatest people IN THE WORLD left the country.

"It became known later that the CIA had spent millions to destabilise the Allende government."

What did they spend the money on? Chile was taken over by the Chilean army, which had existed in pretty much its 1973 form since 1817. Did they buy the Chilean army new boots? The boring mundane truth was that the Chilean army was full of nationalist patriots. But the mundane truth interferes with the BBC's heroic narrative.

"Over the years, President Pinochet acquired a degree of international acceptance, and he did make some concessions to democracy but, in October 1988, the electorate, given the straight choice of voting for him or against him, rejected him by 54.7% to 43%. He reluctantly accepted the result and, though he refused opposition demands to hand over power immediately, he stepped down as president two years later."

Yes folks. Its true. Although the BBC can't bring itself to actually lie, and say that he clung on illigitimately to power, they can qualify the facts with all sorts of 'reluctantlies' and 'refused opposition demandses'. Just to let us know that although he did the right thing, he didn't WANT to do the right thing. Because he is EVIL.

"If Augusto Pinochet thought he would enjoy a quiet retirement, he was mistaken. A regular visitor to Britain, where he had many friends, he was arrested in October 1998, while undergoing medical treatment in London."

So lets see, Pol Pot= died quietly in bed, Joseph Dzhugashvili aka Stalin= died quietly in bed, 'Baby Doc' Duvalier= living quietly in France. But Augusto Pinochet must be hounded to his grave. Got it. Seems fair. The only bad dictator is the right-wing dictator. Must remember.

"But the frailty of his health, after several strokes, meant that he never stood trial and, to the end, judgements on Augusto Pinochet remained passionately divided."

Apart from at the BBC, where we all hate the bastard.

Monday, December 11, 2006

If only Cambodia had had a Pinochet

It struck me with great force today, as the harpies and fops of the left in this country screech and caterwaul about Augusto Pinochet- vastly greater evil was perpetrated in many places and by many people in the 20th Century, but nobody so successfully broke the back of a Communist takeover. And thats what they hate. At the cost of 3,000 lives, Chile was saved from the fate of Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Russia, Ethiopia and on and on and on.

For the 3,000 and their families, this was a tragedy and a disaster. For everyone else in Chile, it was the best result possible. I don't want to suggest that the murder and torture of people is easily justified- it isn't. But if the Bolshevik revolution in Russia had been suppressed at the cost of 3,000 lives, would that have been a better outcome than what happened? 8 million kulaks murdered, 25 million Russians of every class, occupation and political view murdered, millions of Ukrainian peasants starved to death, untold damage done to other nations as a direct result of copying the Russian 'revolution'? If 3,000 people in Cambodia had died and Pol Pot never made it to power, would that be terrible? Less terrible than what actually happened, certainly. I could go on.

For the polytechnic lecturers and the local authority Stalinists, Salvador Allende was the apotheosis of lefty pizazz and style. He was sauve, handsome and communist. How could you top that? Pinochet was an uptight, organised Army man with very little personal charisma and a profound Burkean understanding of why communism was evil and dangerous. Here, in microcosm, was the worlds dilemma in the 20th century. Do you follow the siren song of the commies to societal disintegration, murder, poverty and oppression? Or the boring, farty conservatives to the nirvana of freedom, wealth and democratic ordeliness?

Well, for the lefties in Britain it was never in doubt! Lead us on to death and oblivion please.

To the victor go the spoils

Every person who cares about the political state of the western world, and whether it has decayed past the state of resurrection, needs to read this article. Victor Davis Hanson describes the towering confidence of the islamic world in its own rightness thereby casting our own mouse-like trembling and hesitancy in the face of any threat or challenge into stark relief. Sitting as we do on a mountain of wealth and military power, instead of behaving as men have done in all times heretofore that "might makes right", we instead fall over ourselves to demean ourselves before those we could crush without even getting up a decent sweat.

I think that a campaign to demand the return of the Hagia Sophia, and the replacement of the Al Aqsa mosque by a Jewish Synagogue/Temple would be a good place to start bringing some reality to the current situation. Perhaps we should think about a campaign to convert the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq to Christianity too, just to make things interesting. We have the whip hand. By itself, the US could crush any nation on earth like a grape. Add to it the UK, with its excellent (especially the Army) if smaller forces, and thats a combo nobody will screw with.

A study of the period at the end of the Ottoman empire will show you how far the Arabs have got with virtually no power, no industry, no creativity and no civilisation- just the power of the lie. Its time to tame the lie, and put it in its place.

Muslim comedy

AP Television has a clip where Manouchehr Mottaki, Iranian Foreign Minister says in Farsi:
"I bluntly announce that anti-Semitism is a Western phenomenon and belongs exclusively to the Western countries. In the Islamic lands, there has never been such a phenomenon as anti-Semitism."

'... and thats why we want to nuke Israel. To demonstrate our extreme pro-Semitism.' He didn't add.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Hamas: democratically elected murder party

Hamas were elected in a proper election. The US says that democracy is the best and must be spread around the world. And yet!!! the US and Britain will not!!!! accept Hamas as the legitimate rulers of the Palestinians and are illegally witholding funds from the Palestinians.

So goes a very familiar story, constantly touted in Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and every islamist mouthpiece; and also by the Dhimmi press- A.P., AFP, Reuters, New York Times and all points left.

So, lets just give that story some consideration. The National Socialist party of Germany was also a completely legitimate political party voted into government. Both before the Nazis and since their demise, political parties have existed in many countries who you WOULD NEVER WANT TO WIN AN ELECTION. Britain had at one point in the 1980's over a hundred communist parties. Any one of them, if elected to Parliament in sufficient numbers would have indubitably destroyed Britain as it was then, and brought untold suffering and death to it (just look at the record of communists round the world if you don't believe me). The idea that any group of people, with whatever collective psychosis and degree of criminality, should they form a political party, are then entitled to get themselves voted into office is so stupid it should not have to be elucidated. And Hamas are a murderous islamo-imperialist collective hiding under the guise of political party and 'social movement'.

And lets just tease out for a moment, what exactly the incensed palestinians and their world-wide cheerleader squad are arguing for: Britain and America should be sending hundreds of millions of dollars of British and American taxpayers money to the palestinians, even though they very recently voted into office a group of people dedicated to the murder of every Israeli, and the destruction of the Israeli state, a long-standing ally of Britain and America- and the fact that they refuse to do this makes them EVIL.

Good argument guys. Just how thick would we have to be?

Friday, December 08, 2006

Floppy slacker Americans and a strategy for winning

"The American people are soured on this war. They don't want any more American casualties," [Lee] Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat and former congressman, said on CBS's "The Early Show." He said that "pressure is building on these politicians to find an answer, to bring to the completion our adventure in Iraq."

First off, lets take that word 'adventure'. An 'adventure' in the sense meant here, is a swashbucking foreign sortie, meant to benefit the pocket and prestige of the adventurer. It might be considered the opposite of a strategic intervention, which is self-evidently serious and considered. How many intelligent people in Britain and America consider George Bush's intervention in Iraq an 'adventure', as opposed to a strategic intervention? As President Bush has pointed out from the very beginning, there are very specific strategic purposes for intervening in Iraq. Saddam Hussein provoked three major wars in his 26 years in charge of Iraq, and because of his terrible political judgement, would almost certainly have attempted more. Getting rid of him and replacing his gangster regime with a working non-islamist democracy in the heart of the middle east would have very long-lasting effects on the region, especially on the other gangster and autocratic regimes around Iraq. That we can safely label a stratagy. It appears that the Democrats, not having a strategy, refuse to countenance the idea that someone else might.

As I've pointed out at least once before in my blog, it took Rome 216 years to defeat Carthage. The US has been in Iraq for 3 years. 14 of the 16 provinces of Iraq are at peace. Virtually every school and hospital in Iraq is open and functioning. Many infrastructure projects have been completed, including the restoration of about 2/3 of the marshes (home of the Marsh Arabs) drained by Saddam Hussein. But America is losing...

Shia vs Sunni violence in Baghdad is getting worse, of that there is no doubt. But then when you have a bipolar society, thats always a risk. Look at Fiji over the last few days (half native Fijian, half Indian immigrant). Saddam did mask that bipolar nature of central Iraq in a way. He totally dominated the Shia through his Sunni police, army and secret police. 'We create a desert, and call it peace' said Tacitus the historian of Rome. Thats what Saddam did: his was the rule of a determined criminal clique supported by those of the same religion and tribe. I hear more and more often from those who will never have to suffer either fate, that things in Iraq were better under Saddam. If you were a Sunni, that is quite possibly true, although certainly not universally so. For Shia, Marsh Arab, Kurd and everybody else who wasn't a Sunni Arab, utter garbage.

But the whole reportage of Iraq is Baghdad-centric, and the particulars of Baghdads psychoses are lazily projected by journalists on to the rest of the country. This despite the fact that Kurdistan is as peaceful as rural England. Most of the south is peaceful, apart from a few pockets where Iranian-sponsored terror groups are trying to muscle in on the oil money now pouring into Iraqi society. Even in the heartlands of what used to be the insurgency, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is being cauterized by a collapse in support for it among Sunni arabs more interested in their future place in Iraqi society than in some stupid worldwide jihad. As with the recent case of the ex-Yugoslav countrylets, once religio-tribal warfare kicks off, where it stops is unknown. Parts of Bosnia have been completely cleared of either muslims or Christians, and more 'ethnic cleansing' would occur if Nato's presence were to be removed. But Baghdad, where 95% of Iraq's Sunni/Shia warfare is occuring would be torn asunder in a completely hideous way were real ethnic cleansing to start.

My suggestion: do a 'Fallujah' on the Mahdi army and the Sunni militias in Baghdad. Only once the backs of the militias are broken can Baghdad look forward to relative tranquillity. At the moment, all the militias have everything to play for, as they are not being pressured militarily in any way. Recently the US Army closed off Sadr City to stop the Mahdi army and the Sadr Brigade from doing their usual disgusting business, only for Maliki to order them off. If I were the US military consul in Iraq, I know what I'd do. Get rid of the militias, especially the Shia ones, and deal with Mr Maliki's squealing and whining later.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Do you want this woman to shape the future of British Society?

The execrable Channel 4 have decided to give a freelance lecturer in islam the 'honour' of giving the alternative Queens Speech on Christmas day. We have been assured that she will be wearing the second-most enveloping muslim dress available, just as an added 'fuck you'. This transgressive, in-your-face decision puts the proposition squarely before us: do you want the Britain that the Queen represents, or do you want the kind of Britain this Khadija has to offer?

I'm pretty sure what kind of future Britain Khadija has in mind. In every part of the world where her ilk have the whip hand, a suffocating intolerance and ignorance prevails. There is no variety, no freedom, no learning and no fun. Just the suffocating rule of sharia.

The Queen's Britain on the other hand has a long and glorious history of freedom, endeavor, creativity, learning, problem-solving, adventure and development.

I know which message I'll be watching (probably the same choice as most Britons I'm guessing).

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Real Grit

Every now and then a juxtaposition hits you. And this one on the front page of the BBC News website made me wince with painful irony. David Cameron promises 'real grit' to his supporters in the coming year. And then theres the little photo of Geoffrey Boycott.

David Cameron thinks that to say something is to make it real. Like all his ilk, to him the words are all. Its not necessary to have real grit, or do things that demonstrate real grit, or live a life that embodies real grit. That would require strength of will and character and spine. But Dave can talk about real grit till the cows come home.

Geoffrey Boycott IS real grit. He would never say it. Gritty men don't. He would never get all weepy about how gritty he is. Thats not a gritty thing. But in everything he does, and especially in all the difficult things he has done, Geoffrey Boycott demonstates that he has real grit. And that is worthy of my respect.

David Cameron talks. Geoff Boycott walks (not in the Cricket sense, obviously).

Monday, December 04, 2006

Democratic foreign policy

Demos, a 'think-tank' of unknown political orientation, says that British ministers (there are about 20 frontline departemental ministers) have not spent enough time chit-chatting with our muslim brethren. According to this august coven, the dilatoriness of our top politicians has the effect of driving the muslims into islamo-imperialist views.

Consider for a moment how stupid that is. First of all, 'muslims' do not constitute a separate nation within Britain. Policies in 'the national interest' are engaged in for the benefit of all of us; that includes those people in Britain who happen to be muslim. So a pretence on the part of politicians to engage in a separate discourse with muslims about THEIR 'national interests' would be wrong. Whether muslims like it or not, Britain is governed for all British people.

Also utterly stupid is the acceptance that somehow the war in Iraq is about islam. The Iraq war may have many policy fathers, but a plan to 'attack muslims' is not one of them. The blame for the widespread acceptance of that superlatively stupid proposition is one that can be squarely laid at the door of the left-wing press and broadcasters of Britain. For some reason, as soon as the islamists in Britain and round the world started saying that the war in Iraq was part of a worldwide attack on islam, the lefty press took up the refrain. Good plan. The worst thing to do with a paranoic is agree with him. A whole castle in the air has been built on this lie- convenient for the left who don't like Mr Blairs wars, but disastrous for those in Britain trying to keep good intra-communal relations.

Why would Demos come out with this now? During the recent Hizbollah-Israeli conflict, a group of so-called muslim community representatives wrote a letter interpreting the bombing of tubes as a necessary result of ignoring muslim views about foreign policy. For the first time, the political classes in Britain rose up almost as one to condemn them for this obvious attempt at blackmail. Will they do the same now in regard to Round 2?