|
|||||
|
A police officer was shot and seriously wounded after stopping a motorist in North London. In the West Midlands, two men have been fatally shot in separate incidents. Just what is wrong with these people? Don’t they know that guns are supposed to be banned in Britain? December 8th, 2002 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
 The evidence is slowly mounting up and it’s pointing in one direction. The finger of suspicion is all but ready to twitch into the rigid instrument of damnable accusation. When even the most ardent and passionate supporters are starting to sniff the foul wind of failure, then you just know that the European Union is heading for the rocks. Two articles today in the Wanker, the first by a Czech journalist Jana Ciglerova:
The fruits of the lumbering Euro-cracy that has left the former Eastern Bloc countries on the periphery kicking their heels for far too long, thus giving them ample time to read through all the small print. For Brussels, the clock is ticking close to midnight now. Also this rather more arid, technocratic item from somebody called Kirsty Hughes who is described as a writer and consultant on European Affairs’ so it is safe to assume that she knows a little of what she speaks. Evidently a passionate Europhile, even she cannot hide the cracks that are starting to appear in her head:
How different it all was even a year ago when everyone who was anyone was busy trumpeting the EU as the bright, shiny, exciting project for a better tomorrow with a future written in the stars and those who proffered even the mildest of criticisms were pilloried as xenophobic, reactionary losers. Well, now the smug grins of satisfaction are on the other faces and the Wankers of the world are united in their creeping realisation that they bought a pup. It’s very nearly pitiful. Like fairy-tale children, the Europhiles are wandering in the deep, dark Graveyard of Grand Schemes, enveloped in the thick miasma of impending doom. Unable to deny its power to grip them or find a way out, they all hold hands and sully forth into the unknown, calling out plaintively for someone to come and rescue them and lead them home. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost. December 8th, 2002 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
I detect something of a ‘first principles’ air hanging over this blog at the moment. An impatient urge to push rudely past the tennis-match formality of polite debate and embrace the raw, beating heart of the matter. This atmosphere may not last and, truth be told, I hope it doesn’t, lest it descends into an arid aesthetism that tends to mitigate heavily against the kind of rumbustious fun we prefer to trade in. That said, I wish to strike while the iron is hot and use this window of opportunity to get something off my chest (where it has been squatting like a toad). Over at ‘The Edge of England’s Sword’ the otherwise reliably insightful Iain Murray has been conducting his own personal War on Drugs. Iain has referred to a report indicating the cannabis is not a ‘gateway’ drug (i.e. people who use cannabis will not necessarily gravitate towards using ‘harder’ drugs such as cocaine, heroin etc). Iain takes the view that the report is misleading for reasons that, I daresay, he could explain with his customary precision. I think it is fair to say that Iain, along with many others, opposes drug legalisation. I take objection to Iain’s position and not because I have any persuasive evidence as to whether cannabis is or is not a ‘gateway’ drug. It is because I simply do not care. December 7th, 2002 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
Alas, the ‘British Disease’ appears to have spread to Australia:
Is there still time for free Australians to fight back? If so, then I urge them not to make the same mistake that gun-owners in the UK made by trying to defend gun-ownership as necessary to the continued participation in shooting sports. Minority sports are casually expendable. Not so, the right to self-defence. It is the latter that you must fight for. It also has the benefit of being the truth. Make sure every Australian knows that. Shout it from the top of Ayers Rock. December 6th, 2002 | 17 comments - (Comments are closed)
I don’t recall ever having reproduced an article in full on this blog and, only on the rare occasion, will I publish a letter in full. This is one such occasion and the quality of the letter merits it:
It is the text of a letter written to the Daily Telegraph by a gentleman called Richard Munday whom I know not but admire much, not just because he is correct, but also because he has not forgotten his heritage. Unlike our political rulers and most of fellow citizens who have shed their birthright like dead skin in the headlong rush to serfdom. But despite having been so outrageously and cynically trampled underfoot the 1689 Bill of Rights is still the law of the land and it does, indeed, bestow on every citizen the right and ability to defend their life, liberty and property. However, the Bill of Rights is an Act of Parliament and, since no parliament can bind its successors, it could easily be repealed by another Act of Parliament. The fact that it has not yet been so repealed is doubtless due to the Old Bill being more honoured in the breach than in the observance. So dragging the glorious old Bill of Rights from its musty chest and waving it in the face of the policeman who will come to arrest you for exercising your rights is all very back-stiffening in theory and may earn your day in Court to shout your case. But, in practice, the merest hint of any such happening would spur HMG into passing a repealing Act which would sail smartly through the House of Glove Puppets with nary a whisper of dissent nor a turn of a single hair. And that would be that. Back to square one. Still, the publication of Mr.Munday’s most righteous missive brings a twitch to my jowels. It proves that some people have not buckled to the maladies of crass hysteria and infantile paranoia. Some people remember what freedom really means and more and more of them are prepared to shout it from the rooftops. December 3rd, 2002 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
Long before the Great Unwashed got it into their tiny minds to start smashing up city centres in protests about ‘globalisation’, there was a healthy trade in cultural memes going on between Britain and the USA. Jazz music made the transatlantic crossing some time in the 1920’s I believe, and took off so successfully in Britain that we began sending our own band-leaders, like Ray Noble, over to the States. The process was enhanced during World War II when US soldiers romanced British ‘dames’ to the tunes of Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller. Post-war, America gave us Elvis and, a few years later, we launched a British invasion of the USA spearheaded by the Beatles. But it wasn’t just a trade in popular music. Thanks to that engine of global cultural hegemony, Hollywood, American speech idioms also found their way into British culture. Whilst some British pundits sneered contemptuously at all these ‘ghastly Americanisms’, they were unable to stop Brits picking up terms like ‘ballpark figure’ or ‘okay, I’m outta here’. The stalwarts who vainly attempted to arrest this process were misguided. Since language is one of the few aspects of life that is not controlled by the government, it is a free market of terms and idioms and many Brits casually adopted American expressions that they found to be more expressive and colourful than their own and seamlessly weaved them into their everyday conversations. That’s how choice works and I’m all for it. But, alongside (or possibly, underneath) this healthy cultural cross-fertilisation is an equally lively, but rather less celebrated, trade in obscenities. I remember clearly back in about 1975 when an American boy at my school used the term ‘motherf*cker’. We were so shocked. It was quite the rudest thing we’d ever heard. But, since then, it has duly taken it’s place in the British lexicon of pre-fight insults. Of course, it is encumbent on us Brits to return the favour by bestowing upon our American cousins an etymological treasure of our own. I am delighted to be able to say that it appears that we have done so. On my journey’s around blogland, I came across Rachel Lucas, a ‘gun-totin’ anti-idiot from Texas (and you can’t get more American than that, surely) who has a category on her blog called ‘Liberals and other Wankers’. Seeing it made me grin from ear to ear because she uses the term with such casual aplomb and without a word of explanation and that means that Rachel is confident that her American readers will recognise and understand the word ‘wanker’. Now, ‘wanker’ is a pure, home-grown British slang the American equivalent of which is ‘jerk-off’. But, let’s face it, ‘wanker’ is pithier, punchier and altogether more abusive. Calling somebody a ‘jerk-off’ is merely naughty, but calling them a ‘wanker’ is downright rude and is, therefore, an infintely preferable term when your intention is to be downright rude. Rachel Lucas clearly intends to be downright rude to her left-wing compatriots. I believe this is a recent development and I would hazard that the British end of the blogosphere has played a part in this successful export drive. In any event, we Brits have bestowed upon our US cousins a valuable tool in the armoury of bellicose confrontation, and at a time when they need it most. We have responded to their market need as they have often responded to ours. Whilst it won’t appear on any balance sheets, the term ‘wanker’ has now taken its place on Unofficial Honour Role of transatlantic trade history. Hurrah! December 3rd, 2002 | 28 comments - (Comments are closed)
In addition to being miserable, it seems that the British (or a few of them anyways) are also getting a bit uppity:
No-one has yet claimed responsibility but I think it is safe to pretty much rule out the Islamofascists. December 2nd, 2002 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
I briefly toyed with the idea of posting this under the ‘Humour’ category but, the trouble is, I am not making this up. I couldn’t possibly make this up. In a country where virtually all forms of private firearm ownership have been outlawed, there was a march today in South-East London by a group calling itself ‘Mothers Against Guns’ in protest at rising gun violence. But that thigh-slapping irony descends into tragi-farce:
Sometimes I feel as if this isn’t a nation anymore. More like an open-air Theatre of the Absurd. November 30th, 2002 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, far too many people still believe that their elected officials exist to look after the interests of the ordinary person. Yes, of course they make mistakes. Doesn’t everybody? Still, their hearts are in the right place and that’s what counts. For those who may still harbour these lingering, absurd delusions, I recommend this article by Sean Gabb. As always, Sean’s language is both florid and forthright. But so it should be because it explains, in detail, how wealth-producing, hard-working Britons have been robbed of their future by a government that they, inexplicably, still trust above all other institutions.
And it may get worse. We have a desperate administration that has plundered everything in sight and the temptation to help themselves to the juicy, low-hanging fruit of private pension funds, may be more than they can resist. The government is not your friend. November 29th, 2002 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
Doubtless co-ordinated with gun-attacks inside Israel, Arab/Al-Qaeda terrorists have also bombed a resort hotel in Kenya. The death toll from the hotel bombing is now 14 people, 11 Kenyans and 3 Israelis (two children). Even more ominously, there was a simultaneous rocket attack on an Israeli civilian airliner. Mercifully unsuccessful, but a very worrying development. November 28th, 2002 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
If, like me, you avidly devour everything this man ever writes, but get a little impatient trawling the blogosphere seeking out his hitherto-elusive brilliance, then get ready to be happy. Mark Steyn now has has his own website! Now that’s what I call progress. [My thanks to Tim Blair for the link] November 28th, 2002 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
The German Chancellor is clearly feeling just a wee bit insecure these days. Why else would would he actually go to Court to sue a news agency because they claimed that he used dye in his hair:
Would that be his image as an incompetent, plundering, unreconstructed tax-and-spend socialist who is wrecking his country’s economy? Oh right, that image. Anyway, in order to avoid any legal complications here at Samizdata, I hereby categorically refute any suggestions that the German Chancellor has ever dyed his hair. After all, why would he need to? It is a wig. November 27th, 2002 | 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. |
|||||