There is an excellent bit of reportage in The Guardian by James Meek, covering the experiences of British troops in Southern Afghanistan that gives a good troop’s eye view of things.
|
|||||
|
There are some similarities in the USA and UK with the convergence of practical politics into a ‘radical centre’ of regulatory big government statists, whose ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels are rather like those of Coke and Pepsi… sure there are differences, but in the end they are still selling sweet brown fizzy drinks… or selling a vision of state in which the mainstream ‘right’, be it Dave Cameron or George W. Bush, are not talking about shrinking the state (even a bit) and freeing the individual (or even the community) but rather just increasing the pace of regulation a bit slower and in different places than the ‘left’. Similarly the mainstream ‘left’ like Tony Blair or Al Gore are not selling wholesale paleo-socialist nationalisation of businesses as they did in the past, because they, like the mainstream ‘right’, now follow a more (technically) fascist economic model in which property can be ‘private’ but control of it is contingent upon being in accord with national political objectives and permission from some local political authority. The ‘left’ and ‘right’ use different metaphors, different cultural references, different symbolism, but in truth they are selling much the same product. They put huge effort into fetishising their product differentiation precisely because there is so little difference in their core beliefs. In the USA, even the issue of self-defence and opposition to victim disarmament is less than solid with the Republicans than it once was as Bush made is clear he was ‘flexible’ regarding anti-gun legislation and needed hard lobbying to not renew the so-called ‘assault rifle’ ban (i.e. semi-automatic rifles which look ‘scary’). Put simply, all mainstream political parties (at the moment) are statist centrists, neither in favour of overt nationalisation nor of individual autonomy, regardless of their sales schpiel. Why this is true is not hard to glean. Professional politicians are people who have the psychological disposition to both meddle in other people’s lives and to use force to have their views imposed. They are people who value having power over others above all else and the more aspects of society that are subject to political direction, the more important politicians become regardless of their hue. So the natural order of things, if you are a person who makes their living out of being a politician, is to work to extend the state into more and more areas of life because the state is what you have influence over, thereby making yourself more important to ever more people. → Continue reading: The folly of always voting for the lesser evil October 12th, 2006 | 34 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Brian Micklethwait is going on ‘internet TV’, which should be interesting. I recall Brian once telling me that he thought he had a ‘good face for radio’. Check it out and hear what he has to say. October 11th, 2006 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
Sorry, but the comment system is acting weird… we will try to get it fixed as soon as possible. It seems to be blocking things it should not and has posted most of the comments entered today dated… some time tomorrow! October 10th, 2006 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
This year’s Libertarian Alliance Conference will be on Saturday 25th and Sunday 26th November 2006, at the rather splendid National Liberal Club in London. Details and on-line booking can be found here, but a word of warning… the event is filling up quite quickly this year and the number of tickets is finite so if you want to come, book soon to avoid disappointment. October 10th, 2006 | Comments are closed
But not the usual suspects it appears. I just came across this story more less by accident.
Some BNP members stockpile the largest ever haul of explosives found at a house in the UK and this does not make the front page of the national media? Did I just somehow miss the articles about this in the Telegraph, Guardian and Times? October 10th, 2006 | 22 comments - (Comments are closed)
I was mildly amused to see that there is a book published in the USA called ‘Why mommy is a democrat’. Presumably it teaches children that just as ‘Mommy’ looks after Junior and makes him share his toys with the kid next door, if the kid next door refuses to share his toys with Junior, Junior should threaten to lock him in the attic and take the toys he wants by force… just like the nice Democrats use the threat of jail for people who do not ‘share their toys’ like they are told. Just a guess. October 7th, 2006 | 15 comments - (Comments are closed)
Muslims in Britain should start taking a good look at the auguries. Windsor, a town known for its genteel (and tourist infested) tearooms, has been playing host to low level riots and violence by enraged English youths for several nights now, sparked by Muslim thugs attacking a mother and daughter and by aggressive demands for a mosque to be built in the overwhelmingly non-Muslim town. At the same time, Leader of the Common Jack Straw has been saying publicly that he would rather that Muslim women not wear veils as it is deeply divisive socially.
He is not calling for state imposed dress codes (which I would strongly oppose) but he is making a self-evident statement about Muslim non-assimilation. Quite rightly he has not made this a broader contention as I have yet to hear anyone voice concern over Hindu women wearing saris or Chinese women wearing cheong sams (I should think not!), because although some Chinese and Hindus choose not to assimilate (but of course many do), they are not calling for their cultures and beliefs to be legally off-limits from criticism or ridicule. It is only Muslim non-integration in the UK that is really a problem because of an apparently widespread Muslim unwillingness to reciprocate tolerance for tolerance. The bigger point here is, of course, not that Jack Straw personally thinks it is unwise that Muslims make themselves so visibly separate from broader British society but that the Leader of the Commons should feel it appropriate to say something that was obviously going to upset a body of Muslim opinion in the UK. This was not an off-the-cuff remark and moreover, he has repeated it and elaborated on the point. I would say that elements of the political class are starting to notice that increasing numbers of the fifty eight million non-Muslims in Britain are growing a great deal less tolerant of intrusive Muslim demands on their tolerance. There comes a time when people start to think enough is enough. In the end, democratic politicians stay in business by positioning themselves to be on the right side of that sort of ‘mass market’ issue and that is something Muslim ‘community leaders’ would do well to ponder when they do a little projecting into the future, assuming they actually want Muslims in Britain to have a future. October 6th, 2006 | 41 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am so tired of having to roar about the latest provocation-of-the-day from some Islamic barking moonbat that I really need to write about something else… so how about a paean to one of my favourite artists? As a big, no, huge Frank Miller fan, delighting in the way he has darkened up an entire art form, rescuing it from both Disneyfication and political correctness, it is interesting to see how his influence has started to spread into other areas of the arts. However I was apprehensive that when I heard that Sin City was going to be turned into a movie… “unfilmable” was all I said when I heard. I was completely wrong and Sin City was a tour de force, unlike the attempt to translate Miller’s Elektra onto the screen, which was a disappointing mess inspite of featuring one of my favourite actresses. So with the debacle of Elektra in mind, my reaction was rather dubious when I heard they were going to make 300 into a movie… oh me of little faith… having just watched the trailer, well, I am not used to having a film clip lasting 1 minute and 46 seconds sent a shiver up my spine quite like that. This is clearly one to watch on the largest screen possible.  Frank Miller has been one of the leading people adding a harder edge to US comics since the 1980’s, reclaiming a place in a medium in which I have always felt France and Japan lead the world. That he is now proving a source of interesting movies for Hollywood just increases my admiration for the man. October 5th, 2006 | 43 comments - (Comments are closed)
A Muslim police officer has been allowed to refuse to guard the Israeli embassy in London.
A ‘rethink’? When ordered to carry out his job and protect a location within the United Kingdom from unlawful attack, PC Alexander Omar Basha took the view that it would be immoral to protect that place (in other words, he refused to enforce British law regarding possible acts of violence because of who the potential target was). The only ‘rethink’ needed is why was he not fired on the spot? I wonder… has a Jewish policeman in the UK attached to the Diplomatic Protection Group ever refused to guard the embassy of a Muslim country in Britain? So tell me, if a policeman who was a member of the BNP refused to protect an African embassy, do you think the Metropolitan Police would need even ten seconds for a ‘rethink’? October 5th, 2006 | 51 comments - (Comments are closed)
Robert Redeker is a writer and philosophy teacher in France who made some self-evident points critical of the behaviour of certain Muslims but he also laid the blame on Islam-as-a-religion itself…
As a result, even though he lives in France and was just expressing his views, he is a hunted man in fear for his life. Time reported that Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Mosque of Paris and president of the French Council of the Muslim Religion spoke of “grave errors” in treating questions of religion in a “purely subjective manner.” Yet surely that is exactly what Redeker did not do. He is looking at our old chum ‘root causes’ and finding that Islam itself may be the problem. That is not a subjective proposition. People need to start thinking of Islam in the same manner as they thought of Communism. Islam may be a religion but it is also has an imposed ‘whole life’ view that makes it indistinguishable from a political ideology. If Muslims want their religion to be treated with tolerance, they need to de-secularise it in the same way Christianity has (largely) done. But for as long as Islam advocates an imposed political order based on religious principles, it must not be treated either legally or socially as being above critique on any level whatsoever. Islam is the problem and, just like Communism and Fascism, it is simply incompatible with western post-Enlightenment civilisation. And also just like Communism and Fascism, it must be contained or defeated militarily when it threatens us but it must also be defeated as an ideology as well. The PLO and Ba’athism were regional threats but they were also largely secular and had political objectives that could at least be discussed (for example even Israel managed to eventually do deals with the PLO). Islam’s morality, theology or weird prohibitions should only be of interest to Muslims, just as Kibbutznik Communism is only of interest to people on Kibbutzes playing at Communism on a strictly voluntary basis… but whereas Communism has been defeated and discredited as a global ideology, Islam is very much alive and kicking and because of Islam’s political imperatives to impose its values by force on everyone (i.e. either become a Muslim or submit as a dhimmi), that makes it of concern to everyone. Until Islam is defeated ideologically, Western Muslims have to be regarded much the way communist sympathisers were regarded during the Cold War. Islam needs to be treated as a political ideology that needs to be confronted and defeated. The pretence that “oh, it is not about Islam, it is just about terrorism” is simply untrue. It is all about Islam. October 4th, 2006 | 71 comments - (Comments are closed)
The Daily Telegraph ran a story titled Blow for Cameron as poll lead is slashed, with this as the leader article on the front page. However the analysis struck me as very strange indeed.
That makes little sense. Dave Cameron has been both consistent and explicit about what he stands for and anyone who thinks “it is hard to know what the Conservative Party stands for at the moment” must be hard of hearing. It stands for regulatory statism, high taxes and Euro-Federalism. In short, if you want to know what the ‘Conservative’ Party stands for under Dave Cameron, you have but to look at Britain for the last nine years under ‘Tony’ Blair. The Tory Party stands for continuity with Blair-ism, just with a fresh set of managers with their If you like what Blairism (or ‘radical centrism’ if you like) has done to Britain but want a fresh Blairite in control, Dave Cameron has made it crystal clear that he is your man. September 30th, 2006 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||