http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1224
'Fifty-seven Muslim governments are pressing to include a “ban on the mocking of religions” in a new U.N. human rights body by pushing a resolution under the agenda item “Racism” condemning what they called the “Defamation of Islam.” In a clear reference to the Muhammad cartoons controversy, the proposal stated that “defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression.”'
And there was me thinking that freedom of expression meant a freedom to express things I want to express...
Monday, July 31, 2006
A letter in Die Tagesspiegel, Berlin newspaper
I lived until 2002 in a small southern village near Mardshajund that is inhabited by a majority of Shias like me. After Israel left Lebanon, it did not take long for Hezbollah to have its say in other towns. Received as successful resistance fighters and armed to the teeth, they stored rockets in bunkers in our town as well. The social work of the Party of God consisted in building a school and a residence over these bunkers! A local sheikh explained to me laughing that the Jews would lose in any event because the rockets would either be fired at them or if they attacked the rockets depots, they would be condemned by world opinion on account of the dead civilians. These people do not care about the Lebanese population, they use them as shields, and, once dead, as propaganda. As long as they continue existing there, there will be no tranquility and peace.
Dr. Mounir Herzallah
Berlin-Wedding
Dr. Mounir Herzallah
Berlin-Wedding
The left and close elections
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5229762.stm
Funny isn't it? Every time a left-wing party loses a close vote, they say it was rigged. And call everybody out in the street. Which, last time I checked is NOT called democracy. Oh well.
Funny isn't it? Every time a left-wing party loses a close vote, they say it was rigged. And call everybody out in the street. Which, last time I checked is NOT called democracy. Oh well.
Our way and the Roman way
Just read "Death by Moral Vanity" at Posse Incitatus (http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/) Very thought provoking. As he says, many commentators have struggled to analyze our current attitude to self-preservation. Is the West too 'civilized' to win wars?
Perhaps because of his blog name, I immediately thought about the Romans, and their attitude to themselves and to the Res Publica. It took the Romans three wars and 118 years to beat Carthage. They lost many battles, whole fleets of ships, Rome itself was at one point under imminent threat- in fact, it took every resource at the disposal of Rome to finally master their most potent rival in the west. But they did.
It is not even five years since Islam declared war on everybody outside its protective umbrella, and already many Europeans and Americans are either bored, relaxed about things or have forgotten there's a war on completely. Could there be a starker contrast?
Every Roman soldier, every Roman military building and every Roman unit standard had SPQR emblazoned on them. Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus= The Senate and the people of Rome. Thats who they were fighting for- and the success of Rome's legions owed in no small part to the huge pride the legionaries had in their form of government, and their status as Roman citizens. They felt superior to those they fought, in civilisation, in discipline and in reputation. And they were right- their civilisation gave ours many of its foundations. Those men did not doubt the evidence of their own eyes- their technology was superior, their organisation was superior, and the men who led them were from ancient illustrious families who vied not only with their generational rivals for glory, but also the great men of previous generations. In every respect they were expected to perform their duties excellently for the benefit of their families honour, and for the benefit of the Roman republic.
How many europeans care about their honour, or their families honour? How many of them are proud of their political system (if they understand what it is)? How many of them are proud of their citizenship?
In America these things still exist, thank God. But as cynicism and modish psuedo-sophistication take their toll on these core conceptions, for how much longer will they be a majority fact?
In Britain, family honour, pride in the polity and citizenship are almost dead. They are constantly trashed by the media, and pop stars and talk show hosts line up to mock and deride them. The Queen, our first citizen, is constantly insulted. Standing up for England is considered pathetically old-fashioned and uncool.
Not only are we incapable of fighting the 118-year war, the first stout blow to this body-politic should suffice to destroy it. We are weak, morally stunted, debauched and nihilistic. Virtually no-one goes to church. Virtually no-one stands for the National Anthem.
Unless someone starts to re-create England very very soon, there will be no point trying.
Perhaps because of his blog name, I immediately thought about the Romans, and their attitude to themselves and to the Res Publica. It took the Romans three wars and 118 years to beat Carthage. They lost many battles, whole fleets of ships, Rome itself was at one point under imminent threat- in fact, it took every resource at the disposal of Rome to finally master their most potent rival in the west. But they did.
It is not even five years since Islam declared war on everybody outside its protective umbrella, and already many Europeans and Americans are either bored, relaxed about things or have forgotten there's a war on completely. Could there be a starker contrast?
Every Roman soldier, every Roman military building and every Roman unit standard had SPQR emblazoned on them. Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus= The Senate and the people of Rome. Thats who they were fighting for- and the success of Rome's legions owed in no small part to the huge pride the legionaries had in their form of government, and their status as Roman citizens. They felt superior to those they fought, in civilisation, in discipline and in reputation. And they were right- their civilisation gave ours many of its foundations. Those men did not doubt the evidence of their own eyes- their technology was superior, their organisation was superior, and the men who led them were from ancient illustrious families who vied not only with their generational rivals for glory, but also the great men of previous generations. In every respect they were expected to perform their duties excellently for the benefit of their families honour, and for the benefit of the Roman republic.
How many europeans care about their honour, or their families honour? How many of them are proud of their political system (if they understand what it is)? How many of them are proud of their citizenship?
In America these things still exist, thank God. But as cynicism and modish psuedo-sophistication take their toll on these core conceptions, for how much longer will they be a majority fact?
In Britain, family honour, pride in the polity and citizenship are almost dead. They are constantly trashed by the media, and pop stars and talk show hosts line up to mock and deride them. The Queen, our first citizen, is constantly insulted. Standing up for England is considered pathetically old-fashioned and uncool.
Not only are we incapable of fighting the 118-year war, the first stout blow to this body-politic should suffice to destroy it. We are weak, morally stunted, debauched and nihilistic. Virtually no-one goes to church. Virtually no-one stands for the National Anthem.
Unless someone starts to re-create England very very soon, there will be no point trying.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
If we talked like the Muslims
We constantly elide from our consciousnesses the lies, insults and gratuitous self-praise of the Muslims. We do this because its politically convenient and because we don't want to cause 'offense' by pointing out that a lie is a lie, an insult is an insult, and self-congratulation is vain and rude.
But lets try a little mind game. Lets translate the 'logic' and 'political opinion' of the muslims into our own terms.
"We must destroy Turkey and throw the Turks into the sea, because they are occupying Christian lands. For hundreds of years, Turkey was part of Christendom, and any lands that are ever Christian must remain so. We will kill anybody we need to kill to make that reality. Anywhere in the world. At any time."
"There is a worldwide muslim conspiracy, supported by eastern governments and their powerful media organisations. The reason Christians don't have good jobs in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Iran is because of the powerful but shadowy muslim influence that pervades those societies. The immoral and bestial influence of islam must be fought and destroyed, for the good of the world. God wills it."
"The muslim world is so corrupt, killing them is actually doing the world good. We should blow up their public buildings, murder their politicians and randomly attack their public transport, and behead any muslims who are unfortunate enough to fall into our hands. Oh, and by the way, we are the innocent party in all this! We are only doing this because of Christianaphobia, the international uber-hatred of our religion whipped up by the hated muslims."
"They hate us because we have the true religion. The muslims are people of the beard (thats our pet name for them). They are jealous because we have the one true prophet, Jesus. People of the beard are ok for murdering if you need to. Oh yes, and lying to them is just fine if it promotes the ends of Christianity. We call it Tacky. It may be tacky, but its ok really. All muslims are pigs and dogs. Not sure why, but it makes us Christians sound better. Once we have killed and mutilated enough muslims, the rest will probably want to become Christians to save themselves, which will be great for all concerned, especially God (pbuh)."
See? See how absolutely awful it is to think like these people? Where their moral superiority comes from I'm still struggling to work out.
But lets try a little mind game. Lets translate the 'logic' and 'political opinion' of the muslims into our own terms.
"We must destroy Turkey and throw the Turks into the sea, because they are occupying Christian lands. For hundreds of years, Turkey was part of Christendom, and any lands that are ever Christian must remain so. We will kill anybody we need to kill to make that reality. Anywhere in the world. At any time."
"There is a worldwide muslim conspiracy, supported by eastern governments and their powerful media organisations. The reason Christians don't have good jobs in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Iran is because of the powerful but shadowy muslim influence that pervades those societies. The immoral and bestial influence of islam must be fought and destroyed, for the good of the world. God wills it."
"The muslim world is so corrupt, killing them is actually doing the world good. We should blow up their public buildings, murder their politicians and randomly attack their public transport, and behead any muslims who are unfortunate enough to fall into our hands. Oh, and by the way, we are the innocent party in all this! We are only doing this because of Christianaphobia, the international uber-hatred of our religion whipped up by the hated muslims."
"They hate us because we have the true religion. The muslims are people of the beard (thats our pet name for them). They are jealous because we have the one true prophet, Jesus. People of the beard are ok for murdering if you need to. Oh yes, and lying to them is just fine if it promotes the ends of Christianity. We call it Tacky. It may be tacky, but its ok really. All muslims are pigs and dogs. Not sure why, but it makes us Christians sound better. Once we have killed and mutilated enough muslims, the rest will probably want to become Christians to save themselves, which will be great for all concerned, especially God (pbuh)."
See? See how absolutely awful it is to think like these people? Where their moral superiority comes from I'm still struggling to work out.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
The EU- a tutting superpower
On the right, we have the USA- international economic and military superpower. On the left, we have China, economic powerhouse. And stage centre, we have the EU, tutting superpower. The US may have the money and the weapons, but the EU has cornered the market in tutting, self-righteous posturing, and lecturing the world on how it should behave. The BBC, mouthpiece for British tutters, is full of advice for other countries. A letter to todays Times newspaper puts it perfectly 'Our societies must become exemplary in matters of harmony, morality, justice and decency'. Imagine a society modeled on the nerdlings of a normal wet-as-Wimbledon Church of England vicar, and you've pretty much got it.
Forget about the fact that '...morality, justice and decency' plus fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. Forget that in the last 15 years millions of perfectly moral, decent, innocent people in Africa have died bloodily at the hands of scabrous wretches. 'All they need is love, man'. No, that is just factually wrong. If you want to protect your harmonious, moral, just, decent society, build great big tanks and ships and missiles, because thats where the immoral, unjust, indecent people who want to take over your country will start. If Britain and America had not had the industrial output and eventually the best military technology 65 years ago, Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would currently rule the planet. And you may recall that harmony, morality, justice and decency got short shrift under national socialism.
It makes me so angry when Jesus's profound words 'By your fruits ye shall know them' are ignored; and replaced by the injunction 'By their words shall ye judge them'. The Arab world especially is ruled by the lie. Lies are told by everyone to everyone in a chaos of hyperbole, cant, misrepresentation, distortion and bile. And instead of looking at the resulting dreariness and awfulness of the societies created by all the lying, many westerners suck up the lies, ignore the outcomes and start repeating the lies themselves. That is just so terrible. We are strong, and we are good, and the evidence of both of those things is all around us. But those simple truths are disregarded by the febrile critics of the west as if they are nothing.
Only a few of our current crop of politicians seem to understand this, and none except Tony Blair have expounded it in public. We are teetering on the edge of a precipice.
Forget about the fact that '...morality, justice and decency' plus fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. Forget that in the last 15 years millions of perfectly moral, decent, innocent people in Africa have died bloodily at the hands of scabrous wretches. 'All they need is love, man'. No, that is just factually wrong. If you want to protect your harmonious, moral, just, decent society, build great big tanks and ships and missiles, because thats where the immoral, unjust, indecent people who want to take over your country will start. If Britain and America had not had the industrial output and eventually the best military technology 65 years ago, Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would currently rule the planet. And you may recall that harmony, morality, justice and decency got short shrift under national socialism.
It makes me so angry when Jesus's profound words 'By your fruits ye shall know them' are ignored; and replaced by the injunction 'By their words shall ye judge them'. The Arab world especially is ruled by the lie. Lies are told by everyone to everyone in a chaos of hyperbole, cant, misrepresentation, distortion and bile. And instead of looking at the resulting dreariness and awfulness of the societies created by all the lying, many westerners suck up the lies, ignore the outcomes and start repeating the lies themselves. That is just so terrible. We are strong, and we are good, and the evidence of both of those things is all around us. But those simple truths are disregarded by the febrile critics of the west as if they are nothing.
Only a few of our current crop of politicians seem to understand this, and none except Tony Blair have expounded it in public. We are teetering on the edge of a precipice.
Monday, July 24, 2006
She's a puffball rebel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5209714.stm
So Madonna is a total rebel and WAY OUT THERE because she mocks and blasphemes against Christianity. The paper tigers really respect that. Funny how she won't do a pastiche of muslim religious practise, or dress up like Mahommed and do a dirty song. Strange. Its almost like taking the piss out of Christians is... low risk; while mocking muslims might actually have some real-world consequences. The 'bravery' of pop musicians seems exactly like the 'bravery' of Hollywood directors- the bad guys are British or Christians, and never Arabs or muslims. Funny that.
How bout some Theo Van Gogh bravery people?
So Madonna is a total rebel and WAY OUT THERE because she mocks and blasphemes against Christianity. The paper tigers really respect that. Funny how she won't do a pastiche of muslim religious practise, or dress up like Mahommed and do a dirty song. Strange. Its almost like taking the piss out of Christians is... low risk; while mocking muslims might actually have some real-world consequences. The 'bravery' of pop musicians seems exactly like the 'bravery' of Hollywood directors- the bad guys are British or Christians, and never Arabs or muslims. Funny that.
How bout some Theo Van Gogh bravery people?
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Stoking up the rhetoric UN stylee
'UN Appalled by Beirut Devastation'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5207478.stm
For those aficianados among us of UN terminology, we know that the word 'Appalled' is reserved only for the most extreme situations. But for the less genned up folks, I have provided here an easy guide to UN rhetoric.
Level 1
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought by black people: 'Slight concern', 'Could the warring parties please start discussing alternatives?', 'Rather unfortunate', 'we'll never send anybody to sort that out'
Level 2
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought by muslims against anybody else: 'Perhaps the warring parties might be better off using non-military means to solve their disputes', 'Its quite quite unfortunate', 'Please try not to kill any more Darfurians, Thais, Phillipinos, Kashmiris etc', 'peacekeeping troops? Why?'
Level 3
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought against muslims: 'Terrible injustice', 'making the Arab street angry', 'really very awful', 'we'll send peacekeepers as soon as we can persuade the US and Britain to send them'
Level 4
Wars that involve the US, Britain or Israel against non-muslims: 'neo-colonial warmongering', 'unilateralist world-domination attempts', 'utterly disgraceful','er, who wants to go be peacekeepers?'
Level 5 (the worst wars that can occur)
Wars that involve the US, Britain or Israel against muslims: 'Appalling', 'disproportionate', 'fueling the hatred that breeds terrorism', 'full blown colonialism', 'Bush more dangerous than Ahmedinajad', 'blood for oil', 'naked islamaphobia', 'Russia? China? Fancy some peacekeeping?'
Level 6 (ok, there are actually wars worse than level 5)
Wars that involve Israel against anybody: 'the Jews are the new Nazis', 'its definitely a holocaust against the Palis', 'they should be driven into the sea', 'totally disproportionate', 'must whip up a peacekeeping force in the next 20 minutes. You ALL want to help out? Wow!'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5207478.stm
For those aficianados among us of UN terminology, we know that the word 'Appalled' is reserved only for the most extreme situations. But for the less genned up folks, I have provided here an easy guide to UN rhetoric.
Level 1
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought by black people: 'Slight concern', 'Could the warring parties please start discussing alternatives?', 'Rather unfortunate', 'we'll never send anybody to sort that out'
Level 2
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought by muslims against anybody else: 'Perhaps the warring parties might be better off using non-military means to solve their disputes', 'Its quite quite unfortunate', 'Please try not to kill any more Darfurians, Thais, Phillipinos, Kashmiris etc', 'peacekeeping troops? Why?'
Level 3
Wars that don't involve the US, Britain or Israel fought against muslims: 'Terrible injustice', 'making the Arab street angry', 'really very awful', 'we'll send peacekeepers as soon as we can persuade the US and Britain to send them'
Level 4
Wars that involve the US, Britain or Israel against non-muslims: 'neo-colonial warmongering', 'unilateralist world-domination attempts', 'utterly disgraceful','er, who wants to go be peacekeepers?'
Level 5 (the worst wars that can occur)
Wars that involve the US, Britain or Israel against muslims: 'Appalling', 'disproportionate', 'fueling the hatred that breeds terrorism', 'full blown colonialism', 'Bush more dangerous than Ahmedinajad', 'blood for oil', 'naked islamaphobia', 'Russia? China? Fancy some peacekeeping?'
Level 6 (ok, there are actually wars worse than level 5)
Wars that involve Israel against anybody: 'the Jews are the new Nazis', 'its definitely a holocaust against the Palis', 'they should be driven into the sea', 'totally disproportionate', 'must whip up a peacekeeping force in the next 20 minutes. You ALL want to help out? Wow!'
Yup, that pretty much covers it
"So after 9/11, the London bombings, the Madrid murders, the French riots, the Beslan atrocities, the killings in India, the Danish cartoon debacle, Theo Van Gogh, and the daily arrests of Islamic terrorists trying to blow up, behead, or shoot innocent people around the globe, the world is sick of the jihadist ilk. And for all the efforts of the BBC, Reuters, Western academics, and the horde of appeasers and apologists that usually bail these terrorist killers out when their rhetoric finally outruns their muscle, this time they can’t.
Instead, a disgusted world secretly wants these terrorists to get what they deserve. And who knows: This time they just might."
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072106.html
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson goes for the jugular. If the islamists want the whole world to hate them, and seek their destruction, they're well on their way. Its a bit like the well-known "Suicide by cop" routine played out unfortunately frequently in the US, only on a whole-culture scale. We are constantly told that there are 1.2 billion muslims; there will be a lot fewer than that soon if they continue to piss on everybody from Kamchatka to Kathmandu and from China to Chile. All over the globe, societies are identifying muslim fanatics and preparing to kill them. The ummah could be a lot smaller soon.
Instead, a disgusted world secretly wants these terrorists to get what they deserve. And who knows: This time they just might."
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072106.html
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson goes for the jugular. If the islamists want the whole world to hate them, and seek their destruction, they're well on their way. Its a bit like the well-known "Suicide by cop" routine played out unfortunately frequently in the US, only on a whole-culture scale. We are constantly told that there are 1.2 billion muslims; there will be a lot fewer than that soon if they continue to piss on everybody from Kamchatka to Kathmandu and from China to Chile. All over the globe, societies are identifying muslim fanatics and preparing to kill them. The ummah could be a lot smaller soon.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Simple solutions to bogus problems #57234
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006330304,00.html
So muslim prisoners don't like our prison food?
Bread and water are halal, I'm reliably informed.
Badum chish! That will be £50 please!
So muslim prisoners don't like our prison food?
Bread and water are halal, I'm reliably informed.
Badum chish! That will be £50 please!
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Really, please don't bother
There was an Islamic Fun Fest last weekend at Alexandra Palace in North London called Islam Expo. All the great and good of islam in Britain, plus lots of nut jobs from around the world came forth to trumpet the great news about the religion of peace. It was a combined PR blast, love-in, hate-fest and mutual back-slap.
Of course, what with Hezbollah triggering war with Israel from the north, and Hamas triggering war with Israel from the east and south, the PR stuff was a total washout. The thing about propaganda is it must at least be a reasonable facscimile of the truth. With islamists using Lebanon and Gaza as launching pads to attack Israel, how many people round the world still believe in the essentially peaceable nature of muslims? How many people still believe a world run by muslims would be a good deal for non-muslims? How many people want anything to do with the death-cult religion? How many religious people want to have anything to do with a religion that launched the video of the murderous scumbag who bombed Edgware Street station virtually on the anniversary of the bombing?
As propagandists down through the ages could tell you, one thing PR can't do is make black white. It can't change the essential nature of something. All it can do is soft-focus or de-emphasize elements that are particularly gratuitously awful. But muslims in Britain can't bring themselves to even do propaganda properly. They WANT us to know that they wouldn't report terrorist activity to the police; they WANT us know that they are prepared to keep bombing us until we stop our 'Crusades against the poor ickle muslims'.
Sadly, its taken many many people years of acts of savage brutality plus acres of newsprint and airtime with muslims telling us why acts of savage brutality are necessary to realise what the situation is. The situation is this: take on the islamic supremacists and defeat them, or prepare yourself for life under the English Taleban.
Of course, what with Hezbollah triggering war with Israel from the north, and Hamas triggering war with Israel from the east and south, the PR stuff was a total washout. The thing about propaganda is it must at least be a reasonable facscimile of the truth. With islamists using Lebanon and Gaza as launching pads to attack Israel, how many people round the world still believe in the essentially peaceable nature of muslims? How many people still believe a world run by muslims would be a good deal for non-muslims? How many people want anything to do with the death-cult religion? How many religious people want to have anything to do with a religion that launched the video of the murderous scumbag who bombed Edgware Street station virtually on the anniversary of the bombing?
As propagandists down through the ages could tell you, one thing PR can't do is make black white. It can't change the essential nature of something. All it can do is soft-focus or de-emphasize elements that are particularly gratuitously awful. But muslims in Britain can't bring themselves to even do propaganda properly. They WANT us to know that they wouldn't report terrorist activity to the police; they WANT us know that they are prepared to keep bombing us until we stop our 'Crusades against the poor ickle muslims'.
Sadly, its taken many many people years of acts of savage brutality plus acres of newsprint and airtime with muslims telling us why acts of savage brutality are necessary to realise what the situation is. The situation is this: take on the islamic supremacists and defeat them, or prepare yourself for life under the English Taleban.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Playing with fire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5177480.stm
The Crown Prosecution Service and human rights lawyers in this country are playing with fire. If they start prosecuting the men in the front lines of our war on islamist terrorists, they will damage morale; and if they start putting them in jail, don't expect the Police and MI5 to risk their lives on our behalf. Only a country with a deranged set of priorities would prosecute men for a mistake like this- there will be many mistakes in this war- it comes with the territory. Innocent lives are often lost in the struggle to win a war. Societies like ours try desperately not to cause innocent deaths, whereas our enemy have no such policy.
Jean Charles de Menezes death was highly regrettable, and a tragedy for his family. But he was an innocent casualty in a war that will have many more of those before we stamp out islamist fascism. And the stout-hearted men and women going into that fight need our utmost support and assistance as they get stuck into the enemy.
In no way do these intended prosecutions support or assist. The Government must intervene to prevent these prosecutions, or reap the awful consequences.
The Crown Prosecution Service and human rights lawyers in this country are playing with fire. If they start prosecuting the men in the front lines of our war on islamist terrorists, they will damage morale; and if they start putting them in jail, don't expect the Police and MI5 to risk their lives on our behalf. Only a country with a deranged set of priorities would prosecute men for a mistake like this- there will be many mistakes in this war- it comes with the territory. Innocent lives are often lost in the struggle to win a war. Societies like ours try desperately not to cause innocent deaths, whereas our enemy have no such policy.
Jean Charles de Menezes death was highly regrettable, and a tragedy for his family. But he was an innocent casualty in a war that will have many more of those before we stamp out islamist fascism. And the stout-hearted men and women going into that fight need our utmost support and assistance as they get stuck into the enemy.
In no way do these intended prosecutions support or assist. The Government must intervene to prevent these prosecutions, or reap the awful consequences.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Its true- the Tories have changed
Dave Cameron wants this headline every day:
"The Tories have Changed!"
Were it to happen, it would actually be correct. They have gone from being a moribund party of ageing Margaret Thatcher groupies to... being the Liberal Democrats. How is that supposed to enthuse us with the desire to vote for the Tories? I hate the Liberal Democrats. I'm sure many of them are lovely people, well-intentioned, honest and law abiding. Its their policies that make me shudder in horror. They are a mish-mash of left-over tosh from the sixties and the original Liberal ideas from the nineteenth century. Sadly, the Lib Dems seem to always manage to pick the worst from both streams. Now for Dave Cameron to take on many of the Lib Dems key policies must be bewildering for both Tories and Lib Dems. But for conservatives like me it leaves no possible democratic choice.
At a time when genuine conservative thought is so useful to cut through the cant and blather being thrown at the electorate from every direction, there isn't any on the airwaves or in the broadsheet, and most pertinently, the soap box.
The killer question is, how long can Britain last without a conservative party?
"The Tories have Changed!"
Were it to happen, it would actually be correct. They have gone from being a moribund party of ageing Margaret Thatcher groupies to... being the Liberal Democrats. How is that supposed to enthuse us with the desire to vote for the Tories? I hate the Liberal Democrats. I'm sure many of them are lovely people, well-intentioned, honest and law abiding. Its their policies that make me shudder in horror. They are a mish-mash of left-over tosh from the sixties and the original Liberal ideas from the nineteenth century. Sadly, the Lib Dems seem to always manage to pick the worst from both streams. Now for Dave Cameron to take on many of the Lib Dems key policies must be bewildering for both Tories and Lib Dems. But for conservatives like me it leaves no possible democratic choice.
At a time when genuine conservative thought is so useful to cut through the cant and blather being thrown at the electorate from every direction, there isn't any on the airwaves or in the broadsheet, and most pertinently, the soap box.
The killer question is, how long can Britain last without a conservative party?
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Simplistic nonsense the BBC way
Not content to take on one huge, complex country at a time, the BBC news people are currently doing a comparative study of India AND China. When I say 'comparative study', I mean that in the television sense of the phrase. That means virtually no data except cherry-picked anecdotage from those two countries media, plus similarly scanty personal observations of BBC correspondents from those two countries.
The main thrust of the BBC's program is that China and India are the superpowers of the future, and that about Thursday week they will (hallelujah!) overtake the US as the premier power on the earth. The question that seems to exercise the BBC minds most is, which one will overtake the US first?
That seems mildly presumptuous. First of all, how on earth did teensy weensy Britain, with it piddling little population, become a superpower in the 18th and 19th centuries? Why has Nigeria, with 100m people never been able to exert influence beyond say, Mali? Perhaps (it is my humble suggestion) huge population is not an automatic guaruntee of economic success nor military dominance. India has had a huge population since virtually the end of the last ice age. And yet its economy was smaller than California's until recently.
Becoming a superpower is just not a straightforward thing. Many planks are necessary to support a great nations ambitions. At the top of the list is good governance: a constitution (whether written or not) which is flexible, effective and able to withstand pressure; a high level of public spirit at all levels of society; effective law enforcement; justice dispensed impartially; a strong conception of private property and the means to enforce it; a willingness in the populace to participate in military efforts, even when they are long and brutal.
Without good governance, a society with pure economic muscle quickly flies of the rails into social disorder, unrest, violence and class warfare. The Soviet Union is a good recent case. Virtually none of elements of good governance existed in the USSR and the millions of Russians and other nations who were expected to do all the heavy lifting gradually lost interest in sustaining the system which gave nothing back.
China is going through exactly the same process right now. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people (I heard the estimate of 300 million) have lost most or all that they had in the industrial transformation that has occured in their country. The older folk may just go off to a deserted place somewhere and die, but the younger ones will fight. Not just that, but many of those who have gained during the same period are at risk of losing their new-found property because there is no institution in China capable of defending their property rights. The friction caused by this will be tremendous. I make the prediction now that if China survives the environmental hell it has created for itself, it will only be a temporary reprieve. In the next 15 years there will be catastrophic social unrest in China, perhaps beyond a scale we can imagine.
India is much better of in respect of governance. It is a functioning democracy, and has a functioning court system capable of enforcing property rights. It also has public education and government programs to enable the poorest people. What it doesn't have is infrastructure to leverage the huge manpower theoretically available, and the general wealth of the Indian population is small. Rich economies have large numbers of rich people- that is the most reliable evidence of their success. At the moment, India has a tiny proportion of beneficiaries of the new industry. Will it grow? Only time will tell. So my prediction for India is much more positive- I predict that in 10 years India will have developed into a middling economic power in a completely sustainable way. I also predict that it will not want to develop huge military power. Its immediate neighbors are either huge (China) or much smaller (Pakistan, Bangladesh). China has no motivation to invade India. Pakistan has motivation, but will never have the means. Bangladesh has neither. So I predict India will become a regional power, stable and responsible and politically mature. That makes it much more likely to be an ally of the US rather than a competitor.
Its interesting that the last time I heard someone cheerleading China as the future replacement of the US as world hegemon, it was Robert Mugabe. BBC journalists and Robert Mugabe singing from the same hymn book. Interesting.
The main thrust of the BBC's program is that China and India are the superpowers of the future, and that about Thursday week they will (hallelujah!) overtake the US as the premier power on the earth. The question that seems to exercise the BBC minds most is, which one will overtake the US first?
That seems mildly presumptuous. First of all, how on earth did teensy weensy Britain, with it piddling little population, become a superpower in the 18th and 19th centuries? Why has Nigeria, with 100m people never been able to exert influence beyond say, Mali? Perhaps (it is my humble suggestion) huge population is not an automatic guaruntee of economic success nor military dominance. India has had a huge population since virtually the end of the last ice age. And yet its economy was smaller than California's until recently.
Becoming a superpower is just not a straightforward thing. Many planks are necessary to support a great nations ambitions. At the top of the list is good governance: a constitution (whether written or not) which is flexible, effective and able to withstand pressure; a high level of public spirit at all levels of society; effective law enforcement; justice dispensed impartially; a strong conception of private property and the means to enforce it; a willingness in the populace to participate in military efforts, even when they are long and brutal.
Without good governance, a society with pure economic muscle quickly flies of the rails into social disorder, unrest, violence and class warfare. The Soviet Union is a good recent case. Virtually none of elements of good governance existed in the USSR and the millions of Russians and other nations who were expected to do all the heavy lifting gradually lost interest in sustaining the system which gave nothing back.
China is going through exactly the same process right now. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people (I heard the estimate of 300 million) have lost most or all that they had in the industrial transformation that has occured in their country. The older folk may just go off to a deserted place somewhere and die, but the younger ones will fight. Not just that, but many of those who have gained during the same period are at risk of losing their new-found property because there is no institution in China capable of defending their property rights. The friction caused by this will be tremendous. I make the prediction now that if China survives the environmental hell it has created for itself, it will only be a temporary reprieve. In the next 15 years there will be catastrophic social unrest in China, perhaps beyond a scale we can imagine.
India is much better of in respect of governance. It is a functioning democracy, and has a functioning court system capable of enforcing property rights. It also has public education and government programs to enable the poorest people. What it doesn't have is infrastructure to leverage the huge manpower theoretically available, and the general wealth of the Indian population is small. Rich economies have large numbers of rich people- that is the most reliable evidence of their success. At the moment, India has a tiny proportion of beneficiaries of the new industry. Will it grow? Only time will tell. So my prediction for India is much more positive- I predict that in 10 years India will have developed into a middling economic power in a completely sustainable way. I also predict that it will not want to develop huge military power. Its immediate neighbors are either huge (China) or much smaller (Pakistan, Bangladesh). China has no motivation to invade India. Pakistan has motivation, but will never have the means. Bangladesh has neither. So I predict India will become a regional power, stable and responsible and politically mature. That makes it much more likely to be an ally of the US rather than a competitor.
Its interesting that the last time I heard someone cheerleading China as the future replacement of the US as world hegemon, it was Robert Mugabe. BBC journalists and Robert Mugabe singing from the same hymn book. Interesting.
Its war
So Al-Jazeera have been saving up a propaganda video of two of the 7/7 bombers for the first anniversary of the bombings, so they can celebrate the brutal murder of 52 innocent civilians in style, and with maximum insult? Fine. Just wait for this years Ramadan my friends. I am personally going to start a campaign to insult the worlds worst religion during its so-called holy month. There will be lots of Mohammed cartoons, lots of anti-islam jokes, lots of doctored photo's of islamic idiots doing their islamic bollocks- all the fun of the circus. If its going to be war, you gotta have two sides, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)