I wish our Queen the happiest of Birthdays, and thank her with the utmost gratitude for the sterling service she has put in during her long and turbulent reign. She has been a beacon of sanity, common sense and tradition in a raging sea of cynicism, mindless 'modernism' and cant. The long fight for the English nation is beginning, and she is a constant touchstone for those rising to the challenge.
Three cheers for her majesty!
Friday, April 21, 2006
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Cameron, Heseltine and the Conservatives
The three cup trick doesn't wash with the electorate any more.
Michael Heseltine very recently set up his own straw man- Conservatives need to stop hating public sector workers, he said. I reckon he did this at Mr Cameron's behest. It appears that Mr Cameron has made a list, which he is working his way down presently. The list is all the groups of people in Britain who pretty much don't ever vote Conservative. And he is, in the vernacular, 'reaching out' to those groups. So the little old Grannies who think the Tories want to privatise the NHS and take away most of their pension have heard from him, the yummy mummies who spend their idle hours cursing the capitalist economy and wishing for an eco-utopia have heard from him, and now, via the magic of a Heseltine intervention, Mr Cameron has the opportunity to reach out to the public servant- all 7 million of them.
Now, I'm sure they are entirely right in believing that those people 99% vote Labour. Various tranches of evidence all point to that. And Mr Cameron seems bent on reaching out in a generalised way to all the recalcitrant bits of Britain, to remind them of the existence of the Conservative party, and to let them know that there is now no discernable difference between them and New Labour. Why that would be of interest to them, I'm not really sure.
But my firm belief is that 'Potemkin Village' politics is no longer viable (if you're not sure what the Potemkin Villages were, look here ). The electorate have too much information about what is really going on, too much experience of deliberate obfuscation on the part of politicians who don't really want the public nosing around in their policies, and are too cynical about the political process to just give window dressing due respect.
What would be of interest to them would be occams razor. A conservative analysis of Britains situation, followed by policies that would transform the country into a conservative landscape rather than the current soft-soap socialist one. Sharp policies truthfully presented, by someone with the steel to make people believe they could actually bring them about. Like they have in Australia for instance; and Canada; and the US. Yes, as far as the Anglosphere is concerned Britain is very much the odd man out.
And thats where my primary proposition comes in: Britain needs an English political party; one that embodies the cardinal principles of governing in the conservative style, and is not afraid of its own history. David Cameron has accepted the grotesque misrepresentations of the Conservative party in the last 20 years as if they were accurate, and has gone into a kind of apologetic genuflection before the electorate. The sublimal messages are 'you were right to think of us as disgustingly greedy, pompous, venal, corrupt slayers of Britains traditional industries and its beautiful trade unions. We're sorry, very sorry, and we'll change out of all recognition as a consequence'.
The only trouble with that kind of obsequiousness is that it really puts off pretty much everybody. Traditional-minded conservatives will know that the lefty misrepresentations were utterly inaccurate, lefties would never leave the safe, cosy Labour nest for the cold ugly conservative one anyway, and most uncommitted observers will get a vague sense of unease at the slimy shifting about of this new tory boy.
The principles of conservative politics are being turned into successful policies all over the Anglo-Sphere, just not in Britain. Remember, all you geniuses of the Conservative party, the facts of life are conservative. When you disgard genuine conservative policies for trendy rubbish, you are putting your party and your country at risk.
Michael Heseltine very recently set up his own straw man- Conservatives need to stop hating public sector workers, he said. I reckon he did this at Mr Cameron's behest. It appears that Mr Cameron has made a list, which he is working his way down presently. The list is all the groups of people in Britain who pretty much don't ever vote Conservative. And he is, in the vernacular, 'reaching out' to those groups. So the little old Grannies who think the Tories want to privatise the NHS and take away most of their pension have heard from him, the yummy mummies who spend their idle hours cursing the capitalist economy and wishing for an eco-utopia have heard from him, and now, via the magic of a Heseltine intervention, Mr Cameron has the opportunity to reach out to the public servant- all 7 million of them.
Now, I'm sure they are entirely right in believing that those people 99% vote Labour. Various tranches of evidence all point to that. And Mr Cameron seems bent on reaching out in a generalised way to all the recalcitrant bits of Britain, to remind them of the existence of the Conservative party, and to let them know that there is now no discernable difference between them and New Labour. Why that would be of interest to them, I'm not really sure.
But my firm belief is that 'Potemkin Village' politics is no longer viable (if you're not sure what the Potemkin Villages were, look here ). The electorate have too much information about what is really going on, too much experience of deliberate obfuscation on the part of politicians who don't really want the public nosing around in their policies, and are too cynical about the political process to just give window dressing due respect.
What would be of interest to them would be occams razor. A conservative analysis of Britains situation, followed by policies that would transform the country into a conservative landscape rather than the current soft-soap socialist one. Sharp policies truthfully presented, by someone with the steel to make people believe they could actually bring them about. Like they have in Australia for instance; and Canada; and the US. Yes, as far as the Anglosphere is concerned Britain is very much the odd man out.
And thats where my primary proposition comes in: Britain needs an English political party; one that embodies the cardinal principles of governing in the conservative style, and is not afraid of its own history. David Cameron has accepted the grotesque misrepresentations of the Conservative party in the last 20 years as if they were accurate, and has gone into a kind of apologetic genuflection before the electorate. The sublimal messages are 'you were right to think of us as disgustingly greedy, pompous, venal, corrupt slayers of Britains traditional industries and its beautiful trade unions. We're sorry, very sorry, and we'll change out of all recognition as a consequence'.
The only trouble with that kind of obsequiousness is that it really puts off pretty much everybody. Traditional-minded conservatives will know that the lefty misrepresentations were utterly inaccurate, lefties would never leave the safe, cosy Labour nest for the cold ugly conservative one anyway, and most uncommitted observers will get a vague sense of unease at the slimy shifting about of this new tory boy.
The principles of conservative politics are being turned into successful policies all over the Anglo-Sphere, just not in Britain. Remember, all you geniuses of the Conservative party, the facts of life are conservative. When you disgard genuine conservative policies for trendy rubbish, you are putting your party and your country at risk.
Freedom fighters of Iraq
Over and over again, I read left-wing commentators saying that the insurgents in Iraq are freedom fighters, fighting a completely justifiable self-defense war against a vicious invader. Some even add that if it were their country, they'd be out there taking pot-shots with their own AK-47. There is a certain huggable humanity to the lefties descriptions of these 'peoples warriors'.
All I can say is, read this article:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-04-19T124108Z_01_GEO942966_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-TEACHERS-KILLINGS.xml&rpc=22
Remember now, these are primary school teachers in a primary school. Tell me how hacking the heads off primary school teachers advances the cause of freedom and self-governance in Iraq?
All I can say is, read this article:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-04-19T124108Z_01_GEO942966_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-TEACHERS-KILLINGS.xml&rpc=22
Remember now, these are primary school teachers in a primary school. Tell me how hacking the heads off primary school teachers advances the cause of freedom and self-governance in Iraq?
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Looking into the miasma
I always wanted to use that word in the title of something, 'miasma', ever since I owned an album back in the mid-eighties by the celibate Rifles called "The Turgid Miasma of Existence". Even back then when I was a down-faced college boy I thought 'Holy crap, thats a pretentious title for some low effort punk music'. What brought that little vignette of my college days to mind was reading some of the posts on the Daily Kos, the most prominent of the left wing blogs in the US. What strikes me first of all about many of the posts is confusion- lack of logic, lack of clarity, lack of facts to support arguments, lack of analysis that seems to fit the stated scenario and most of all cogency. Cogency is the appropriateness of supplied facts to to the argument you want to make.
Its a well known fact that an excess of emotion makes it difficult to argue coherently. What is immediately obvious from the Daily Kos is that many of these people are in the throes of violent emotion- hatred for President Bush, hatred for right-wing Christians, hatred for the traditional virtues (and vices) of America, hatred for the particular place America has in the world and at least a partial hatred for themselves. Additional to the hatred is frustration that a large majority of Americans DON'T have the aforementioned hatreds and self-loathing, and keep voting in Republicans who support Christianity, traditional values etc. There is also a rising petulance about them, which in previous era's led some liberal Americans into treason and such activities as spying for the soviet union.
Reading their rants is painful. I'm guessing that pot-smoking is rampant among these people; anyone who has spent time talking to people who smoke a lot of pot will know how uniquely boring it is to try to converse with people who think what they're saying is profound and organised, but is in fact the dribblings of a smoke-addled brain. There is no ability to go from point to point with purpose, or to adduce facts to back up assertions. Wild statement after wild statement, it becomes tiresome after just a few minutes.
The most annoying thing of all though is lack of seriousness. When you are a teenager, you think that the most important thing to do is criticise what other people are doing. You don't need to do anything yourself, nor do you need to provide alternative plans or guidance or solutions. Its enough to sit on the sidelines and tell everybody how wrong they're getting it. When you leave the teenage years, and get a job, take on responsibilities, maybe start a business, you start to understand how much harder it is to DO than to talk or write; how making judgements may directly affect the existence or not of your job or enterprise or family. You get serious, because there are serious things to do, and serious matters to make a call on.
What seems to mark out the political left in both Britain and America is an almost complete lack of seriousness. They seem to be people whose most important decision in their whole life seems to be which Issue of the Day shall I champion. I wish I could make each and every one of them start a business, run a farm, build a building from scratch or organise a public transport system- something difficult. How differently would the narrative run then?
Its a well known fact that an excess of emotion makes it difficult to argue coherently. What is immediately obvious from the Daily Kos is that many of these people are in the throes of violent emotion- hatred for President Bush, hatred for right-wing Christians, hatred for the traditional virtues (and vices) of America, hatred for the particular place America has in the world and at least a partial hatred for themselves. Additional to the hatred is frustration that a large majority of Americans DON'T have the aforementioned hatreds and self-loathing, and keep voting in Republicans who support Christianity, traditional values etc. There is also a rising petulance about them, which in previous era's led some liberal Americans into treason and such activities as spying for the soviet union.
Reading their rants is painful. I'm guessing that pot-smoking is rampant among these people; anyone who has spent time talking to people who smoke a lot of pot will know how uniquely boring it is to try to converse with people who think what they're saying is profound and organised, but is in fact the dribblings of a smoke-addled brain. There is no ability to go from point to point with purpose, or to adduce facts to back up assertions. Wild statement after wild statement, it becomes tiresome after just a few minutes.
The most annoying thing of all though is lack of seriousness. When you are a teenager, you think that the most important thing to do is criticise what other people are doing. You don't need to do anything yourself, nor do you need to provide alternative plans or guidance or solutions. Its enough to sit on the sidelines and tell everybody how wrong they're getting it. When you leave the teenage years, and get a job, take on responsibilities, maybe start a business, you start to understand how much harder it is to DO than to talk or write; how making judgements may directly affect the existence or not of your job or enterprise or family. You get serious, because there are serious things to do, and serious matters to make a call on.
What seems to mark out the political left in both Britain and America is an almost complete lack of seriousness. They seem to be people whose most important decision in their whole life seems to be which Issue of the Day shall I champion. I wish I could make each and every one of them start a business, run a farm, build a building from scratch or organise a public transport system- something difficult. How differently would the narrative run then?
The urge to kill yourself (and maybe everybody else)
The power is strong in this one! Whichever scientist (or academic functionary) wrote this, I think we can all guess their political affiliation:
Man appeared roughly 4 million years ago. Then about 4 million years ago a fairly small creature appeared in the valleys of Africa. This little guy was really a little "guy" - a recognizable human ancestor. It walked upright, had a really large brain relative to its body, and ate both meat and plants. Unfortunately, it wasn't very strong, had small teeth and no real claws. Just about anything that found one of these things could eat it if it wanted to. There was just about no way it could survive, except for one thing - it had that big brain. It was apparently smart enough to stay out of the way (most of the time) of all the things that wanted to eat it. And while it was hiding, it figured out how to fight back. This began man's ascendance to the top of the natural world. In fact, many would argue that man is the most prolific killing machine ever to inhabit this planet.
http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/content/science/dinosaurs/after.html
Idiotarians just can't abide people really. You can sense the guys overwhelming urge to add a bit to that last sentence "...most prolific killing machine ever to inhabit the planet, but especially the Conservatives/Republicans/Fanatical Christians." Sneaky, depraved, murderous. The left believes that we are all those things. Their will to self-harm (I think thats the latest psycho-babble terminology) is only exceeded by their will to harm us.
Brrrrrrrrrrr!
Man appeared roughly 4 million years ago. Then about 4 million years ago a fairly small creature appeared in the valleys of Africa. This little guy was really a little "guy" - a recognizable human ancestor. It walked upright, had a really large brain relative to its body, and ate both meat and plants. Unfortunately, it wasn't very strong, had small teeth and no real claws. Just about anything that found one of these things could eat it if it wanted to. There was just about no way it could survive, except for one thing - it had that big brain. It was apparently smart enough to stay out of the way (most of the time) of all the things that wanted to eat it. And while it was hiding, it figured out how to fight back. This began man's ascendance to the top of the natural world. In fact, many would argue that man is the most prolific killing machine ever to inhabit this planet.
http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/content/science/dinosaurs/after.html
Idiotarians just can't abide people really. You can sense the guys overwhelming urge to add a bit to that last sentence "...most prolific killing machine ever to inhabit the planet, but especially the Conservatives/Republicans/Fanatical Christians." Sneaky, depraved, murderous. The left believes that we are all those things. Their will to self-harm (I think thats the latest psycho-babble terminology) is only exceeded by their will to harm us.
Brrrrrrrrrrr!
Friday, April 14, 2006
We are all Americans now
If I said this:
"I would agree that in general Pakistanis are a loathsome, naive, petulant bunch, but then the fact that we in Britain allow ourselves to be so influenced by them makes us 10 times worse."
How much would you wager me that I could get that comment posted by the BBC on any part of their website? $50,000?
Second case.
"I would agree that in general Americans are a loathsome, naive, petulant bunch, but then the fact that we in Britain allow ourselves to be so influenced by them makes us 10 times worse." Craig Eastman, Liverpool, UK
This comes from this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4881474.stm story on the BBC website, the first time I've ever seen a story about Anti-Americanism. There is NO WAY you could get away with talking about any other nations citizens like that on the BBC. I'm not going to call it racism, because there is no American race. America is a fantastic amalgam of races. However, it IS hostile beyond anything acceptable in public discourse. If its good enough for the Pakistanis, its good enough for the Americans.
Don't expect a great upsurge of sympathy though- most Britons are now incorrigably anti-US and the problem is getting much worse. But I would recommend that Americans:
1) avoid vacationing in Britain
2) avoid buying British products
3) publicise any antagonism and hostility they meet if they do come here as widely as possible
Collective action can go both ways!
"I would agree that in general Pakistanis are a loathsome, naive, petulant bunch, but then the fact that we in Britain allow ourselves to be so influenced by them makes us 10 times worse."
How much would you wager me that I could get that comment posted by the BBC on any part of their website? $50,000?
Second case.
"I would agree that in general Americans are a loathsome, naive, petulant bunch, but then the fact that we in Britain allow ourselves to be so influenced by them makes us 10 times worse." Craig Eastman, Liverpool, UK
This comes from this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4881474.stm story on the BBC website, the first time I've ever seen a story about Anti-Americanism. There is NO WAY you could get away with talking about any other nations citizens like that on the BBC. I'm not going to call it racism, because there is no American race. America is a fantastic amalgam of races. However, it IS hostile beyond anything acceptable in public discourse. If its good enough for the Pakistanis, its good enough for the Americans.
Don't expect a great upsurge of sympathy though- most Britons are now incorrigably anti-US and the problem is getting much worse. But I would recommend that Americans:
1) avoid vacationing in Britain
2) avoid buying British products
3) publicise any antagonism and hostility they meet if they do come here as widely as possible
Collective action can go both ways!
How then should we act?
"Laughing rather than hanging around."
Thats the crucified Jesus, they're mocking by the way.
"This is Popetown, where money, power and corruption are the name of the game, and everyoneís playing. With an all-star cast, Popetown takes you into the side-splittingly surreal world of the Vatican as the long suffering and good-hearted Father Nicholas struggles to walk the narrow path of righteousness, whilst surrounded by money grabbing cardinals and a pogo-stick-riding infantile pope."
http://newsbusters.org/node/4902
Translate this scenario into the Muslim world for a moment... take the defining moment of Mohammeds life, and turn it into crap television. Then show a Madrassah where a bunch of venal, corrupt Imams hang out and that some of them have extreme sexual perversions which go un-remarked by the rest. Then stick a niave lowly Imam in there for comic effect. In how many countries would that TV show get shown?
Not only are extreme double standards in effect now, but the audacity of the 'satirists' has become the biggest joke. It is the audacity of the schoolyard bully, kicking and punching the little boys, but servile and obsequious when the really deadly hardcases come round. I just posted a comment on the Comedy Central public website about the utterly reprehensible censoring of the latest episode of South Park, which (would have) showed Mohammed for a few seconds. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. LISTEN TO ME, PEOPLE. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
South Park only gets away with being so utterly blasphemous and disgusting because its understood that THERE ARE NO SACRED COWS. If you rubbish and trash and piss and shit on 98% of peoples sacred beliefs and religious shibboleths, thats really NO GOOD. Exempting 2% means you have given them a special dispensation in the world of satire. And thats NO GOOD. We, the 98%, are not going to let you get away with that. Here's why. Because if its not satire, its grotesque and unpardonable insult of things that we hold to be sacred, beautiful and pristine. And then things will get interesting.
I promise.
Thats the crucified Jesus, they're mocking by the way.
"This is Popetown, where money, power and corruption are the name of the game, and everyoneís playing. With an all-star cast, Popetown takes you into the side-splittingly surreal world of the Vatican as the long suffering and good-hearted Father Nicholas struggles to walk the narrow path of righteousness, whilst surrounded by money grabbing cardinals and a pogo-stick-riding infantile pope."
http://newsbusters.org/node/4902
Translate this scenario into the Muslim world for a moment... take the defining moment of Mohammeds life, and turn it into crap television. Then show a Madrassah where a bunch of venal, corrupt Imams hang out and that some of them have extreme sexual perversions which go un-remarked by the rest. Then stick a niave lowly Imam in there for comic effect. In how many countries would that TV show get shown?
Not only are extreme double standards in effect now, but the audacity of the 'satirists' has become the biggest joke. It is the audacity of the schoolyard bully, kicking and punching the little boys, but servile and obsequious when the really deadly hardcases come round. I just posted a comment on the Comedy Central public website about the utterly reprehensible censoring of the latest episode of South Park, which (would have) showed Mohammed for a few seconds. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. LISTEN TO ME, PEOPLE. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
South Park only gets away with being so utterly blasphemous and disgusting because its understood that THERE ARE NO SACRED COWS. If you rubbish and trash and piss and shit on 98% of peoples sacred beliefs and religious shibboleths, thats really NO GOOD. Exempting 2% means you have given them a special dispensation in the world of satire. And thats NO GOOD. We, the 98%, are not going to let you get away with that. Here's why. Because if its not satire, its grotesque and unpardonable insult of things that we hold to be sacred, beautiful and pristine. And then things will get interesting.
I promise.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Whingebag Simpson Update
John Simpson has a message to you and the world: Nyah Nyah nee Nyah Nyah, We Told You So.
Its not a sophisticated message. Its not a subtle message. Its not a very important message.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4894148.stm
But it does get pride of place on the BBC news website. Stage center.
Essentially, before Saddam was evicted the saudi foreign minister told the old whingebag that invading Iraq would cause trouble, and would upset people. Wow!!! Run that by me again. Thats a worldwide newsflash folks!!!
The only thing about the middle east that is truly predictable is the ranting and posturing of the Arab Street. You remember 'The Mother of All Battles' don't you? Which if you stayed up late enough you could catch all of because it was over so quickly... Remember Comical Ali? Remember every foreign minister of every Arab state telling us how we were bringing about Armageddon times 50? Remember all the Vox Pops of arabs in the streets of everyplace in the middle east predicting awesome and titanic consequences of messing with Iraq?
It turns out that in three years John Simpson has found nothing new to say about the liberation of Iraq. Just mulling over conversations with fat, rich, spoilt Saudi's. The same Saudi's who host the largest and richest groups of Islamists on the planet. Try to remember this John: the Saudi's are NOT OUR FRIENDS. They don't want the experiment in democracy in Iraq to succeed, any more than the dictators in Tehran, Damascus and Cairo want us to succeed. So for just once, try to see the situation from our side, huh?
Its not a sophisticated message. Its not a subtle message. Its not a very important message.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4894148.stm
But it does get pride of place on the BBC news website. Stage center.
Essentially, before Saddam was evicted the saudi foreign minister told the old whingebag that invading Iraq would cause trouble, and would upset people. Wow!!! Run that by me again. Thats a worldwide newsflash folks!!!
The only thing about the middle east that is truly predictable is the ranting and posturing of the Arab Street. You remember 'The Mother of All Battles' don't you? Which if you stayed up late enough you could catch all of because it was over so quickly... Remember Comical Ali? Remember every foreign minister of every Arab state telling us how we were bringing about Armageddon times 50? Remember all the Vox Pops of arabs in the streets of everyplace in the middle east predicting awesome and titanic consequences of messing with Iraq?
It turns out that in three years John Simpson has found nothing new to say about the liberation of Iraq. Just mulling over conversations with fat, rich, spoilt Saudi's. The same Saudi's who host the largest and richest groups of Islamists on the planet. Try to remember this John: the Saudi's are NOT OUR FRIENDS. They don't want the experiment in democracy in Iraq to succeed, any more than the dictators in Tehran, Damascus and Cairo want us to succeed. So for just once, try to see the situation from our side, huh?
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Its just too too much
I am almost speechless. I say, almost. When was the last time you laughed out loud at a Guardian article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1163436,00.html
I keep on remembering bits and laughing. I'm sorry.
The Guardian sent reporters to the darkest remote mountains of Afghanistan on the trail of the three young guys who were the youngest taliban/Al Qaeda captured and interned at Guantanamo bay. They have now been released and of course your average lefty is hot for the burning hatred and resentment sure to spill from the mouths of these wronged children. Ooops!
Here are some direct quotes from these young men:
"I am lucky I went there, and now I miss it. Cuba was great."
"Americans are good people, they were always friendly, I don't have anything against them,"
"If my father didn't need me, I would want to live in America."
"Americans are polite and friendly when you speak to them. They are not rude like Afghans. If I could be anywhere, I would be in America. I would like to be a doctor, an engineer _ or an American soldier."
Now you know why I'm laughing. The great Satan? Who he?
And hows this for real actual lefty crow eating? "This might seem to jar with the prevailing opinion of Guantanamo among human rights groups," said the Guardian reporter. Dya think? But this paragraph, quoted in full, is the killer.
"Naqibullah, Asadullah and Mohammed Ismail were moved into one large room, which was never locked. They were taught Pashto (their own language), English, Arabic, maths, science, art and, for two months, Islam. 'The American soldiers ate pork but they said we must never do that because we were Muslim,' said Naqibullah. 'They were very strict about Islam.'
I almost cried I laughed so hard... have you seen the rantings of the anti-war crowd about Gitmo? Have you read their outrageous lies about what goes on there, about the torture and the koran-abuse? One day those liars will feel shame about themselves, shame brought to them by the testimony of people like Asadullah and the people who have been released from Gitmo who are not dedicated liars and committed haters of the west.
One side in this war tells the truth.
(Hat Tip: SondraK and LGF)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1163436,00.html
I keep on remembering bits and laughing. I'm sorry.
The Guardian sent reporters to the darkest remote mountains of Afghanistan on the trail of the three young guys who were the youngest taliban/Al Qaeda captured and interned at Guantanamo bay. They have now been released and of course your average lefty is hot for the burning hatred and resentment sure to spill from the mouths of these wronged children. Ooops!
Here are some direct quotes from these young men:
"I am lucky I went there, and now I miss it. Cuba was great."
"Americans are good people, they were always friendly, I don't have anything against them,"
"If my father didn't need me, I would want to live in America."
"Americans are polite and friendly when you speak to them. They are not rude like Afghans. If I could be anywhere, I would be in America. I would like to be a doctor, an engineer _ or an American soldier."
Now you know why I'm laughing. The great Satan? Who he?
And hows this for real actual lefty crow eating? "This might seem to jar with the prevailing opinion of Guantanamo among human rights groups," said the Guardian reporter. Dya think? But this paragraph, quoted in full, is the killer.
"Naqibullah, Asadullah and Mohammed Ismail were moved into one large room, which was never locked. They were taught Pashto (their own language), English, Arabic, maths, science, art and, for two months, Islam. 'The American soldiers ate pork but they said we must never do that because we were Muslim,' said Naqibullah. 'They were very strict about Islam.'
I almost cried I laughed so hard... have you seen the rantings of the anti-war crowd about Gitmo? Have you read their outrageous lies about what goes on there, about the torture and the koran-abuse? One day those liars will feel shame about themselves, shame brought to them by the testimony of people like Asadullah and the people who have been released from Gitmo who are not dedicated liars and committed haters of the west.
One side in this war tells the truth.
(Hat Tip: SondraK and LGF)
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Denial of Downside
What a depressing experience- I just completed what the Conservative Party website calls its Built To Last online 'survey'. Its an odd sort of survey; there are a series of mind-numbingly banal propositions which you have to rate, from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. The propositions go along the lines of 'We modern, compassionate Conservatives are for beautiful modern flats for all 18 year olds'. Who on earth is going to 'strongly disagree' with that? None of the propositions were 'We want all Grannies beaten to within an inch of their lives', strangely. If you've been reading a lot of Lib Dem literature lately none of the ideas espoused will be new to you. Why isn't David Cameron leader of the Lib Dems again? This whole 'right leader, wrong party' lark is getting old...
Sadly, for conservative Conservatives its all bad news. That is mainly because along with all the denial of reality we have come to associate with the Lib Dem world, David Cameron has added a new denial- denial of downside. Most effective policies have a downside for somebody. Many really essential policies may have a downside for everybody in the short or even medium term. Thats just how the world is. But not in the half-light world of DC. Its cake and pies for everybody, a veritable garden of Eden, a wonderland where nobody has to pay the gas bill and its always the first day of spring.
Unfortunately for Mr Cameron, most conservative people in Britain are just too darned boring and sensible to believe in that hogwash. They know that very often a necessary measure will bring pain to some part of the nation. And thats how it should be presented to the public. Honestly, and with humility, but out front.
Over and over again, Mr Cameron says he wants to empower people, give them more control over their lives. Sensible, practical people know there are only two ways to do that: first, don't take away the money that gives them the power in their lives and second, don't hem their lives in with the machinery of government. Simple. Thats what conservative people have been saying for many years now, and some, like the great M Thatcher, actually did it. It was painful, and often outraged the lovers of the cushy life paid for out of the public purse, and the occupant of the job for life in some vast bureaucracy. But it was necessary. Mr Cameron never wants there to be any more pain- he never wants there to be a downside for anyone ever again. But thats just not going to happen.
Back in the 90's there was a name bandied about for the guy who wants to be everybodies buddy- he's a people-pleaser. Mr Cameron is one of those. Winston Churchill: compare and contrast.
Sadly, for conservative Conservatives its all bad news. That is mainly because along with all the denial of reality we have come to associate with the Lib Dem world, David Cameron has added a new denial- denial of downside. Most effective policies have a downside for somebody. Many really essential policies may have a downside for everybody in the short or even medium term. Thats just how the world is. But not in the half-light world of DC. Its cake and pies for everybody, a veritable garden of Eden, a wonderland where nobody has to pay the gas bill and its always the first day of spring.
Unfortunately for Mr Cameron, most conservative people in Britain are just too darned boring and sensible to believe in that hogwash. They know that very often a necessary measure will bring pain to some part of the nation. And thats how it should be presented to the public. Honestly, and with humility, but out front.
Over and over again, Mr Cameron says he wants to empower people, give them more control over their lives. Sensible, practical people know there are only two ways to do that: first, don't take away the money that gives them the power in their lives and second, don't hem their lives in with the machinery of government. Simple. Thats what conservative people have been saying for many years now, and some, like the great M Thatcher, actually did it. It was painful, and often outraged the lovers of the cushy life paid for out of the public purse, and the occupant of the job for life in some vast bureaucracy. But it was necessary. Mr Cameron never wants there to be any more pain- he never wants there to be a downside for anyone ever again. But thats just not going to happen.
Back in the 90's there was a name bandied about for the guy who wants to be everybodies buddy- he's a people-pleaser. Mr Cameron is one of those. Winston Churchill: compare and contrast.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Countdown to the great launch
On the 23rd of April 2006, a great political organisation will be born which will transform British politics.
Remember, you heard it here first!
Remember, you heard it here first!
Repent ye while there is still time
Quite good if over-the-top warning about our possible future-
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
Most pertinent and timely is the commentary about the wests preoccupation with human rights and religious liberties, while seemingly oblivious to the fact that if we are dead, or weak, or defeated we won't have any 'rights' at all. Our enemies like hacking peoples heads off with rusty knives and machinegunning schoolgirls- I don't suppose legalistic entreaties to them about the geneva convention and the universal agreement on human rights are going to stop them in their tracks. Can you imagine the islamists setting up a Guantanamo Bay with individuals copies of the Bible for each inmate? Can you see them getting first rate medical treatment for our wounded soldiers? Can you see them letting militant Christians set up propaganda and misinformation organisations in their capital cities?
Hard to see, no!
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
Most pertinent and timely is the commentary about the wests preoccupation with human rights and religious liberties, while seemingly oblivious to the fact that if we are dead, or weak, or defeated we won't have any 'rights' at all. Our enemies like hacking peoples heads off with rusty knives and machinegunning schoolgirls- I don't suppose legalistic entreaties to them about the geneva convention and the universal agreement on human rights are going to stop them in their tracks. Can you imagine the islamists setting up a Guantanamo Bay with individuals copies of the Bible for each inmate? Can you see them getting first rate medical treatment for our wounded soldiers? Can you see them letting militant Christians set up propaganda and misinformation organisations in their capital cities?
Hard to see, no!
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
French denial of reality
There is an excellent video blog at www.bonjour-america.com by the estimable Cyrille de Lasteyrie. He has a great sense of humour, and is no mean actor. In episode #13 of his video blog, he asks a bunch of people in what looks like the interior of a bar or club questions about America. They turn out to be mainly well-informed about US politics, and in fact about America in general. The absolute head turner though is the question about the US moon landings. All but two people said that they had been faked.
So here we have a group of above-average intelligence, well informed youngish people most of whom refuse to believe that America's space endeavors were actual, and were faked by the film industry (their words not mine). Capricorn 1 was an American movie made in 1978 that shows a desparate NASA faking a Mars shot so as to preserve its funding and its reputation. From this source, the conspiracy theories derive. Most conspiracy theories are virtually impossible to refute, as they are based on missing evidence rather than observable facts. The moon landings however are not susceptible of conspiracy theory. Anybody with a large enough telescope can show you the remains of the Apollo missions still sitting on the moon where the astronauts left them.
So why would these young French people not believe the Americans capable of these feats of engineering and human derring-do? As the French nation has diminished, so has its generosity of spirit and its belief in achieving great deeds. Had the French landed men on the moon, it would probably be a constant topic of their boasting, along with the military deeds of Napoleon and the great French empire. Sadly, mixed into the French psyche is a very strong denial of that which is painful, humiliating or hard to stomach. And American success is all of those things. So is the fact that the French economy is incapable of producing new jobs. There is a direct link between the denial of reality which says that no American ever set foot on the moon, and the denial of reality that if you are guarunteed a job from age 18 by whichever company takes you on then that company is highly unlikely to take you on in the first place.
Many criticisms can be made of the Anglo psyche, but one that can't is a refusal to face uncomfortable facts. The French better swallow their pride and start facing facts before the facts bite them on the arras.
So here we have a group of above-average intelligence, well informed youngish people most of whom refuse to believe that America's space endeavors were actual, and were faked by the film industry (their words not mine). Capricorn 1 was an American movie made in 1978 that shows a desparate NASA faking a Mars shot so as to preserve its funding and its reputation. From this source, the conspiracy theories derive. Most conspiracy theories are virtually impossible to refute, as they are based on missing evidence rather than observable facts. The moon landings however are not susceptible of conspiracy theory. Anybody with a large enough telescope can show you the remains of the Apollo missions still sitting on the moon where the astronauts left them.
So why would these young French people not believe the Americans capable of these feats of engineering and human derring-do? As the French nation has diminished, so has its generosity of spirit and its belief in achieving great deeds. Had the French landed men on the moon, it would probably be a constant topic of their boasting, along with the military deeds of Napoleon and the great French empire. Sadly, mixed into the French psyche is a very strong denial of that which is painful, humiliating or hard to stomach. And American success is all of those things. So is the fact that the French economy is incapable of producing new jobs. There is a direct link between the denial of reality which says that no American ever set foot on the moon, and the denial of reality that if you are guarunteed a job from age 18 by whichever company takes you on then that company is highly unlikely to take you on in the first place.
Many criticisms can be made of the Anglo psyche, but one that can't is a refusal to face uncomfortable facts. The French better swallow their pride and start facing facts before the facts bite them on the arras.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
What do they know of England...
One particularly painful memory of the late eighties is a song by Billy Brag, called The Few, although most of us will only recall the refrain, which goes
"what do they know of England, who only England know?"
Its message is that we have to know all about our oppressive Empire history if we are to understand our particular awfulness as a nation. Upbeat!
But there is another, even more basic ignorance in Britain, which may be much more damaging than the ignorance of skinheads who don't know about the Seige of Ladysmith or the Great Game.
http://www.currentviewpoint.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=11&command=shownews&newsid=826
This excellently written article has more than one highly informative anecdote.
"After the event I went to get some fresh air upstairs and as I looked out at a quaint old mill on the Quay a young English Muslim in a long robe and head covering asked me about this place where we stood, Canary Wharf. I told him it had been decimated and nearly obliterated by the Luftwaffe in the Blitz and that the conflagration could be seen as far away as Hertfordshire. I pointed out the lone mill and said it had miraculously survived the relentless wartime bombing raids. He looked at me and said, 'Who did you say did the bombing?' I replied, 'The Luftwaffe.' He said 'Who are they?' I said, 'The Germans.' He said 'Really? Well, I've learned something today.'"
I think we've all learned something today. A very large tranche of immigrants in Britain know nothing of its history, culture, traditions and folkways. Not only that, they disdain to learn them. As Ms Gould reveals in the rest of this piece, they are lauded in doing so by a largish contingent of socialists, liberals and academics- men and women who wear their hatred of their own people and culture like a badge of pride. I am no reflex patriot, and I believe that nationalism should always be balanced by humanitarian concerns and friendliness to other peoples, but there is something highly disfunctional about hating your own folk, your own kith and kin. Billy Bragg did, Michael Mansfield QC does, George Galloway does, many individuals in the Liberal Democrat party do, including my MP Lynne Featherstone. What must we do about that?
We must make sure that this alliance between our self-proclaimed enemies, and the people of Britain who would help them towards their goals, are prevented from achieving them.
"what do they know of England, who only England know?"
Its message is that we have to know all about our oppressive Empire history if we are to understand our particular awfulness as a nation. Upbeat!
But there is another, even more basic ignorance in Britain, which may be much more damaging than the ignorance of skinheads who don't know about the Seige of Ladysmith or the Great Game.
http://www.currentviewpoint.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=11&command=shownews&newsid=826
This excellently written article has more than one highly informative anecdote.
"After the event I went to get some fresh air upstairs and as I looked out at a quaint old mill on the Quay a young English Muslim in a long robe and head covering asked me about this place where we stood, Canary Wharf. I told him it had been decimated and nearly obliterated by the Luftwaffe in the Blitz and that the conflagration could be seen as far away as Hertfordshire. I pointed out the lone mill and said it had miraculously survived the relentless wartime bombing raids. He looked at me and said, 'Who did you say did the bombing?' I replied, 'The Luftwaffe.' He said 'Who are they?' I said, 'The Germans.' He said 'Really? Well, I've learned something today.'"
I think we've all learned something today. A very large tranche of immigrants in Britain know nothing of its history, culture, traditions and folkways. Not only that, they disdain to learn them. As Ms Gould reveals in the rest of this piece, they are lauded in doing so by a largish contingent of socialists, liberals and academics- men and women who wear their hatred of their own people and culture like a badge of pride. I am no reflex patriot, and I believe that nationalism should always be balanced by humanitarian concerns and friendliness to other peoples, but there is something highly disfunctional about hating your own folk, your own kith and kin. Billy Bragg did, Michael Mansfield QC does, George Galloway does, many individuals in the Liberal Democrat party do, including my MP Lynne Featherstone. What must we do about that?
We must make sure that this alliance between our self-proclaimed enemies, and the people of Britain who would help them towards their goals, are prevented from achieving them.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Tony Blairs strategy for the war on Islamism
Tony Blairs strategy for the war on Islamism is to mobilize 'moderate Muslims' against 'fundamentalist or Islamist Muslims'. There is a growing consensus in the fact-based community that the existence of 'moderate Muslims' is only theoretical. A moderate Muslim would be an individual who ignored sizeable chunks of the Koran in favour of enlightenment beliefs about the nature of man, and the best structure of a society; one where no religion would hold decisive sway over the machinery of government. They would believe in the primacy of secular law, and would hold as their first allegiance the polity in which they lived, and only secondarily to the strictures and enactments of their religion. They would have the habits of tolerance and rational argumentation, and of obeying the law even when it is difficult to do so.
I know of no sizeable body of Muslims anywhere where these hold true. Britain, my home, is particularly unhappy in this regard. Most Muslims in Britain retain most of the cultural world-view they came here with. Despite us treating incomers like long-lost children, giving them homes, food, money and government jobs, they are increasingly hostile to Britain and to its interests. The youngest generation of Muslims living here are the most committed in their hatred of Britain, and the least enamored of its way of life. But every other nation I can think of with a sizeable Muslim population is similarly situated. The US, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland and Spain all have this problem. France is the worst case- 10% of its population are young Muslims- France will be lucky not to become part of the Ummah in my lifetime.
From all the available evidence, I would say that the number of moderate Muslims is falling, rapidly. Islamists have found extremely fertile breeding grounds everywhere where Muslims are a minority. In Britain, only 3.6% of the population are Muslim, but you would never believe it given the amount of discussion they provoke, and the amount of money they cost us to protect ourselves from their homicidal children.
Tony Blairs strategy would appear to be based on a fallacy. It makes sense from one angle, in that it keeps the moral high ground with Britain, but then so did Neville Chamberlain's. Mr Blair is a smart man, and knows both the political landscape and what is possible, but I don't think this strategy will be good enough for long.
Another strategy would be removal. Given their small numbers at present, it would be entirely possible to repatriate Muslims to their countries of origin. The Pakistanis would be the first object of this policy, as they seem more receptive to the principles of Islamism than the other ethnic groups that make up the Muslim population. Without their presence, much of the day-to-day workload of MI-5 would be reduced, and we could concentrate on the Somali's, Saudi's and Bangladeshi's, fewer in numbers.
My fear is that Britain has got used to not solving problems, but managing them. We chose not to go hammer and tongs to defeat the IRA, and they are present in Irish politics to this day, poisoning the body politic with their thuggery, organised crime and strong-arm tactics. Instead, we cosied up to them to stop them blowing up all our office blocks. The Islamist threat is different in many ways, but this is an enemy that can be beaten. So far, the cosying up method has born no discernible fruit, and dividing and conquering doesn't seem like its going to work this time either.
I know of no sizeable body of Muslims anywhere where these hold true. Britain, my home, is particularly unhappy in this regard. Most Muslims in Britain retain most of the cultural world-view they came here with. Despite us treating incomers like long-lost children, giving them homes, food, money and government jobs, they are increasingly hostile to Britain and to its interests. The youngest generation of Muslims living here are the most committed in their hatred of Britain, and the least enamored of its way of life. But every other nation I can think of with a sizeable Muslim population is similarly situated. The US, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland and Spain all have this problem. France is the worst case- 10% of its population are young Muslims- France will be lucky not to become part of the Ummah in my lifetime.
From all the available evidence, I would say that the number of moderate Muslims is falling, rapidly. Islamists have found extremely fertile breeding grounds everywhere where Muslims are a minority. In Britain, only 3.6% of the population are Muslim, but you would never believe it given the amount of discussion they provoke, and the amount of money they cost us to protect ourselves from their homicidal children.
Tony Blairs strategy would appear to be based on a fallacy. It makes sense from one angle, in that it keeps the moral high ground with Britain, but then so did Neville Chamberlain's. Mr Blair is a smart man, and knows both the political landscape and what is possible, but I don't think this strategy will be good enough for long.
Another strategy would be removal. Given their small numbers at present, it would be entirely possible to repatriate Muslims to their countries of origin. The Pakistanis would be the first object of this policy, as they seem more receptive to the principles of Islamism than the other ethnic groups that make up the Muslim population. Without their presence, much of the day-to-day workload of MI-5 would be reduced, and we could concentrate on the Somali's, Saudi's and Bangladeshi's, fewer in numbers.
My fear is that Britain has got used to not solving problems, but managing them. We chose not to go hammer and tongs to defeat the IRA, and they are present in Irish politics to this day, poisoning the body politic with their thuggery, organised crime and strong-arm tactics. Instead, we cosied up to them to stop them blowing up all our office blocks. The Islamist threat is different in many ways, but this is an enemy that can be beaten. So far, the cosying up method has born no discernible fruit, and dividing and conquering doesn't seem like its going to work this time either.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
US Forces attack Mosque- wait, no thats all lies
On 27th March 2006, I blogged about a completely biased BBC online news story that seemed even from first reading to not coincide with the rest of what I'm hearing from Iraq, and also to coincide with the facts as related by the US official authorities. Now of course, the BBC is entitled to not believe what the US official authorities say without checking the facts independently if they can, but if you read that article you will come to the conclusion that nobody at the BBC tried to do that.
Subsequently, this http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Daily/Mar/060331.htm article on the official site of the international force in Iraq has some very interesting FACTs in it, presumable verifiable by the BBC if they care. Which they don't.
"The Iraqi Special Forces commander who led a weekend raid on a kidnapping cell in Baghdad spoke with Time magazine March 29. Local media [and Al-Arabiyah in Dubai] had made an assertion earlier in the week identifying the location of the operation as a mosque. However, according to Iraqi and U.S. official reports, the targeted complex was six blocks away from the closest mosque, the Mustafa Mosque. “The target was a Baghdad office complex used by an armed militia and not a mosque,” the unidentified commander said."
"A hostage freed in the operation confirmed the U.S. and Iraqi Special Operations Forces account, contradicting claims that U.S. and Iraqi troops targeted a Shiite mosque and killed unarmed worshipers."
"U.S. military officials have insisted no mosque was entered nor damaged in the raid, and that those describing the raid as a massacre faked evidence by moving bodies of gunmen killed fighting the Iraqi troops."
The BBC gave credence to the original accusations by reporting verbatim from Al-Arabiyah, and by not reporting the accusations as possible propaganda and by giving no context within the story about Al-Sadr and Mahdi armies previous form. Do you expect them to do another story now, and reveal the quite startling effort that went into making this propaganda story fly? That in fact, rather a lot of gory corpse-play went on and a prayer room in an office complex was touted as a mosque?
No, that really is expecting too much. The BBC is no longer a voice of British people, reporting in the interests of the British nation. It is a platform for our enemies to launch their shabby propaganda.
Subsequently, this http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Daily/Mar/060331.htm article on the official site of the international force in Iraq has some very interesting FACTs in it, presumable verifiable by the BBC if they care. Which they don't.
"The Iraqi Special Forces commander who led a weekend raid on a kidnapping cell in Baghdad spoke with Time magazine March 29. Local media [and Al-Arabiyah in Dubai] had made an assertion earlier in the week identifying the location of the operation as a mosque. However, according to Iraqi and U.S. official reports, the targeted complex was six blocks away from the closest mosque, the Mustafa Mosque. “The target was a Baghdad office complex used by an armed militia and not a mosque,” the unidentified commander said."
"A hostage freed in the operation confirmed the U.S. and Iraqi Special Operations Forces account, contradicting claims that U.S. and Iraqi troops targeted a Shiite mosque and killed unarmed worshipers."
"U.S. military officials have insisted no mosque was entered nor damaged in the raid, and that those describing the raid as a massacre faked evidence by moving bodies of gunmen killed fighting the Iraqi troops."
The BBC gave credence to the original accusations by reporting verbatim from Al-Arabiyah, and by not reporting the accusations as possible propaganda and by giving no context within the story about Al-Sadr and Mahdi armies previous form. Do you expect them to do another story now, and reveal the quite startling effort that went into making this propaganda story fly? That in fact, rather a lot of gory corpse-play went on and a prayer room in an office complex was touted as a mosque?
No, that really is expecting too much. The BBC is no longer a voice of British people, reporting in the interests of the British nation. It is a platform for our enemies to launch their shabby propaganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)