|
|||||
|
Deputies sitting in the Russian Duma are proposing a law that would re-criminalise homosexuality. However, according to the BBC:
Yes, well, I do recall that it was the same BBC that assured everyone that Jean-Marie Le Pen had not a cat in hell’s chance of getting past the first round of the French presidential elections. April 27th, 2002 | Comments are closed
 Inspired by a call in Saudi Arabia for Jewish women to be enslaved, my very good friend in the USA, Ed Collins sent me this e-mail:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hubba hubba!! April 27th, 2002 | Comments are closed
I seem to recall that one the tasks undertaken by our Cold War fighters was the smuggling of Bibles into the former Soviet Union. Looks like their services may be required again before too long. A British EU judge has warned that distribution of Bibles could violate proposed EU Anti-Racism Laws. Unfortunately, subscription is required in order to read the article in full but this is the opinion of Lord Scott of Foscote:
Among the literature that could fall foul of this definition, according to Lord Scott, is the Bible and also ‘Biggles’, novels about a fictional WWII fighter pilot. Looks like Perry was rather prescient when he decided to call this blog ‘the Samizdata’. April 26th, 2002 | Comments are closed
I would like to thank Daniel Antal for his lucid and informative observations about Pim Fortuyn and for illustrating the many reasons why it is wrong for me to bracket him in with Jean-Marie Le Pen. I have no doubt that there are qualitative and ideological differences between all of the so-called ‘far-right’ politicians in Europe but it does occur to me that they have all, to a greater or lesser degree, ridden to power on the back of the anti-immigration tiger. That they are all perceived as racists is due to the fact that the current political-media establishment is unable to grasp the difference between ‘racist’ and ‘culturalist’. April 25th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Jean-Marie Le Pen is not President of France and is unlikely to become President of France but I don’t think that it is an exaggeration to say that his success in the first round of the presidential elections is already sending shockwaves across Europe and maybe the wider world. Why? Anyone who has been following events in Europe over recent months cannot help but have noticed Nationalist politicians of the Le Pen variety notching up stunning electoral success all over the continent, including Holland, Denmark, Austria and Italy. The success of Le Pen, in this context, is not so much an eruption as part of an ongoing pattern. Something is radically changing in Europe and the ruling jacobin elites have no idea how to respond much less stop it. They are worried. They are right to be. The settlement of post-war Europe was a centrist consensus built around an all-encompassing welfare state where high taxes and generous benefits were seen as a type of ‘enlightened’ self-interest; people happily paid into the system to help their less fortunate neighbours and friends in the sure and certain knowledge that the system would care equally well for them as and when the time came. But, whatever we say about the inquities of tribalism, the fact appears that those same people were less enthusiatic about providing such bounty to strangers from faraway lands with whom they felt no affinity or kinship. Is this an admission of racism? Well, yes, it most certainly is. Why try to invent anaesthetising euphamisms for it? The massive third world immigration into Europe in the last twenty years or so has seen the system stretched to breaking point resulting in a surly, resentful and thoroughly balkanised polity that is starting to express itself through people like Le Pen in France and Pym Forytun in Holland. The ossified Eurocrats are starting to reap what they have so blithely sewn. But it isn’t just the Napoleonic welfare-state which is to blame. The post-war political class was shot through with post-colonial guilt and haunted by the horrors of Nazi Germany to the extent where they saw ‘European culture’ as something which had to be curbed, repressed and, preferably, phased out. Europeans were required to demonstrate open-ended ‘tolerance’ while immigrant communities were required to do quite the opposite. It was an appallingly misconceived and damaging bit of social engineering that may yet have terrible reprecussions. There are those who will point to 9/11 as a turning point but that would not be entirely true. These tensions have been fomenting in Europe for years. What may be true is that both 9/11 and the Israel-Palestinian conflict have further radicalised the large Muslim minorities in much of Europe, particularly in France and Holland. How many Europeans have visualised, rightly or wrongly, homicide bombers devastating the pavement cafes of Paris or Amsterdam and shuddered? Failing to find comfort in their mealy-mouthed and morally relative incumbents, have they turned to other sources for their salvation? Of course, this could all just be a protest vote rather than a long-term trend but the former sometimes has a knack of of morphing into the latter even if nobody meant it to. I have a sense that the world is shifting in tectonic ways and moving the plates of history around under our feet. April 22nd, 2002 | Comments are closed
In protest at the electoral success in France of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French EU commissioner speaking in Brussels, Bertrand Maginot has expressed his outrage and concern.
April 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed
No link I regret to say but the BBC is reporting that exit polls in France indicate that fire-brand nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen has edged out the socialist Prime-Minister Lionel Jospin into second place in the presidential elections behind front-runner Jacques Chirac. At the moment it appears as if Chirac and Le Pen will be contesting the presidency in a head-to-head fight. This could get very….well, interesting. April 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed
And, what’s more, he’s a talentless, pretentious wanker. For those who have never heard of him (consider yourselves fortunate), he is a former stand-up ‘comic’ now-turned novelist who rose to fame in the 1980’s with his fiery brand of allegedly funny invective. In reality, his routine was a barely-concealed vehicle for his bone-headed left-wing polemic which he played out in front of adoring and similarly-minded audiences at a time when comedy cabaret was the spearhead of the left-wing resistance movement in Thatcher’s Britain. All young Ben had to do was to call Mrs.T a ‘mad old cow’ to have his monolithic audience shrieking with delight and appreciation. Hardly the mark of comic genius. What made it even more galling was his cynical adoption of a painfully fake working-class cockney accent just to ensure that his ‘cred’ with the comrades wasn’t sullied by any admission of his rather comfortable middle-class origins and first-rate education. He coupled his ‘comedy’ career with a full-blown activist agenda, shouldering his way to prominence in every trendy lefty/green campaign imaginable from benefit gigs for striking miners to marches against cruise missiles, you name the cause, Elton was there and sounding off. He is every inch a bedsit-Che Gueverra who got lucky. Still, it worked for him and he ended up with his own series on the BBC (natch!) but when the current Labour government was elected, Elton mysteriously left our TV screens. Job accomplished I suppose and, with that, he more or less retired from life as Doyen of Anti-Establishment Radicalism to marry, sire and settle down as a sort of ‘grand old man’ of the British left whose opinion is still canvassed by a new generation of ‘meeja dahlings’ who seem to regard the wretch as some sort of Oracle. An example is this interview in the Al-Independent where readers are treated to an opportunity to submit their fawning questions and, in response, get drivel like this:
Well, it’s reassuring to know that Elton’s ‘personal line’ stops short of doing adverts for banks but is far enough advanced to enable him to utilise those same banks as repositories for the considerable personal fortune he has amassed from his showbiz career. I wish I had known about this question-and-answer session a little sooner, then I could have logged on and posed my own burning question: ‘Ben Elton, why are you such a wanker?’ [Update. How very rude of me to fail to acknowledge that the above-mentioned link comes courtesy of excellent fellow British blogger Peter Briffa] April 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed
And it’s getting closer to home. A man in his 20’s has been shot dead on the dancefloor of a North London nightclub. The club is situated about 400 yards from my front door. April 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed
Britain’s worst-kept secret is now out in the very public domain. Chancellor Gordon Brown announced his annual budget today and, as widely-expected, has hiked up National Insurance (a type of payroll tax) in order to increase funding of the National Health Service. This was called the ‘Budget For Health’ by the government. Whose health? Certainly not the health of the economy. The business sector will have to stump up a whopping £3.9 billion a year more in taxes in a desperate attempt by the government to placate its public sector supporters and defer the dark day when the NHS simply collapses. And it probably will collapse in due course. The NHS is Britain’s version of Yasser Arafat; an odious, Soviet-inspired monstrosity that has caused countless deaths and yet is mysteriously exempt from anything even approaching a critical word. Its status among the British is that of Sacred Cow, nay Red Heiffer. It is the Holy of Holies, the state of which is the barometer by which every government is finally judged. It is hardly a surprise that the press roundly trumpets opinion poll results which overwhelmingly endorse tax rises to improve the NHS when an answer in the negative is probably more outrageous than supporting legalised child-prostitution. The left never miss an opportunity to hector the British public with the admonition that, if they want improved health care, they have to pay for it. I agree, of course. I just think they should cut out the middle-man. But the cracks have been showing of late. Too many people have been travelling abroad for their health care treatment, forking out for private insurance or watching their elderly relatives expire on trolleys in dank state hospital corridors and you can’t keep that kind of disquiet from spreading. Everybody seems to know or sense that the NHS is crocked and beyond redemption but they are prepared to shut their eyes and wish very, very hard that the government will hose enough money at it to make it all wonderful, gleaming, efficient and keep it free. It won’t work in the long-term or even the medium-term but the government is gambling that the massive cash boost will tide them over to the next election when they will be able to annouce that they have ‘saved’ the NHS and ensured its future as ‘the best insurance policy in the world’. On the face of it, it is a dangerous gamble. The Labour government was elected on the promise that they had put behind them, for ever, their old ‘tax and spend’ policies and it is at least pragmatic to assume that they will be judged harshly for breaking their promise without delivering. On the other hand, it might just fool ’em by providing a glimmer of ersatz hope. It is almost impossible to underestimate the sacred status of the NHS. The faith it is has traditionally inspired may prove a strong enough medicine to anaesthetise the public’s critical faculties and enable them to go on believing in the Easter Bunny. In the meantime, we’re all going to get poorer. Poverty is bad for your health. April 17th, 2002 | Comments are closed
It feels crude, offensive even, to refer to events on the West Bank as a sideshow, yet that is exactly what they might have been. Shortly after September 11th, I predicted that Israel and Syria would come to blows. The tension had been brewing for some time and while homicide-bombers were wreaking havoc in Israel and the Israelis wreaking havoc on the West Bank, rockets were being fired into Northern Israel from Lebanon. Lebanon is Syria’s wholly-owned subsidiary. Well, it looks like the Syrians are expecting trouble and my money says that they are going to get it. The ‘accidental’ explosion at the Syrian missile factory at Homs ten days ago was no accident. It removed Syria’s ability to replace or refuel its existing missile stock. With Syria’s forces concentrated around the Bekaa Valley (deja vous?) they are the only thing standing between the Israelis and Damascus. How was your appetizer, ladies and gentlemen? Ready for the main course? April 15th, 2002 | Comments are closed
According to the founders of the International Criminal Court in Rome have delcared that ‘it marks the turning of a new page in human history’. Setting aside, for a moment, the rather pompous tone, they might well be right. But the question is, exactly what ‘page’ is being turned? The intention of the Court is to bring perpetrators of genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and other ‘crimes against humanity’ to justice regardless of where they are in the world. Their jurisdiction will apply where the domestic courts in question fail to act and they can only act in countries which are signatories to the Rome Treaty establishing the Court. Certainly these are noble ideals. Who wants to see a world where homicidal regimes can get away with it? Certainly not me but my disquiet is borne from the feeling that it is not quite as simple as that. Bureaucracies, once established, tend not only to grow but also actively seek reasons for their continued existence and expansion. Just now, it is only the above-mentioned type of activities which are under the ICC’s remit but how long will it be thus circumscribed? A brief to tackle ‘crimes against humanity’ can be interpreted in all manner of ways to cover all manner of policy decisions. A tough anti-immigration policy? A lack of welfare benefits? No nationalised ‘free’ health care? No state education programme? There are no end of people who earnestly believe that such things constitute ‘crimes’.. The ICC may be benign but how long will it stay that way? This is not just theoretical. Within the last few years the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (a welfare-state cartel) launched a war against ‘money-laundering’ and ‘drug-running’ that morphed almost seamlessly into a campaign (led particularly by France and Sweden) against what they laughably referred to as ‘unfair tax competition’. The justification for this neo-imperialism was that small countries providing tax havens were ‘undermining the democracy’ of countries such as France and Sweden. The result of this was that little countries like Malta, Leichtenstein, the Cayman Islands and Monaco were threatened with everything short of war in order to comply with the demands of the OECD for banking transparency and other domestic changes of law. They had no choice but to toe the line. Thus the ‘quest for global justice’ becomes the imposition of agendas. There are even greater dangers than this, though. No criminal code is enforceable without armed agents to act in its name. This leaves the ICC reliant on the military muscle of big powers to act as its appointed ‘police force’. But, as we have seen, in a world of complex alliances and interests, that is rarely going to be available. In time the ICC will demand it’s own ‘police force’ to act independently of nation-state interests. And that is a recipe for war without end. I say this because, does anybody imagine that Slobodan Milosevic would be facing a War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague today had he had a nuclear arsenal at his disposal? At the risk of upsetting some people, the answer has to be no. It is for that same reason that Vladimir Putin will never have to answer for the Russian Army’s activities in Chechnya and Ariel Sharon remains impervious to the plaintiff cries of the ‘international community’. This is a lesson which will not have been lost on other nations. The message is, if you want to retain your independence, sovereignty and autonomy of action then you better get yourself heavily armed and, preferably, nuclear armed. When you possess both the ability and the will to vaporise a big chunk of the planet, the ‘international community’ is left grumbling and impotent. I have no doubt that the formation of the ICC was driven by good intentions, by the best of intentions. Unfortunately, they are exactly the kind of intentions that so often pave the road to hell. April 14th, 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. |
|||||