Saturday, 9 May 2009

Facebook Transplant Part 4 - Originally Posted 26/2/09

This is part 2 of my most loathed list. Following this I have a much longer list of special mentions, which I will post at some point in the future.

***

Here is the remainder of my "Top Ten" list, including the much alluded to #8. I expect this one to get some more arguments and comments going. I hope that you at least find my choices and my reasons for them interesting and food for thought, even if you do not agree with me.

#6 Lord Nazir Ahmed

Nazir Ahmed is the first Moslem peer in British history, which is actually kind of cool. What is not cool at all is that he is using his position to push a very vehement multi-cultural agenda when he should in fact be encouraging British Moslems to integrate and assmiliate into British society.

Lord Ahmed was a leading voice in opposition to Geert Wilder’s last week, allegedly even threatening to rally ten thousand protesters if the Dutch MP was allowed to screen his film in the House of Lords. Yet the same Lord Ahmed has hosted a variety of Islamist clerics and preachers of violence, especially towards Jews, at the Lords in the name of “dialogue”.

Lord Ahmed represents the danger of the “moderate” Moslem majority in the UK. While decrying violence and preaching cooperation and coexistence, an investigation into a lot of his comments and actions show that he does not seek coexistence, instead he strives towards the alteration of traditional British values and freedoms to accommodate Islam. This is a stance common amongst even moderate Moslems, and yet is just as insidious and dangerous in the long term as suicide bombers are in the short one.

On top of this, Lord Ahmed killed someone in December while messing about with his mobile phone while he was driving. He got a 12 week (6 on license) jail sentence for dangerous driving and a one year driving ban – most people get closer to a year in jail for this offense (which is pathetically low as it is), but of course it would not be very politically sensitive to incarcerate such an august personage for taking someone’s life.

His Wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Ahmed

Lord Ahmed also represents the last name on my top-ten list to be involved in some way with a pro-Islamist or anti-Semitic agenda. Lest you think I am just Islamaphobic (ok, I provisionally admit it), lets tear into the last four names on my top ten to see if I can offend anyone else in some way by saying it how I see it.

#7 Thabo Mbeki

Thabo Mbeki, until recently the President of South Africa is on this list for a few reasons. As someone with links to Zimbabwe, I would have to say that my primary reason for loathing and despising Mbeki is that he let Mugabe get away with murder (literally) for so long. As the head of the regional power, he could easily have curbed Mugabe’s excesses years ago, thereby preventing the implosion of the Zimbabwean economy and the starvation and oppression of his people. That he did not is reason enough for scorn.

Not that Thabo does not have anything else to qualify him for this list. Under his watch, crime in South Africa has run rampant, anti-white discrimination camouflaged as affirmative action has caused a massive brain drain in South Africa, and HIV/AIDS has spread with alarming rapidity. The latter fact is in no small part to Mbeki’s saying that it was poverty, not ignorance and irresponsible sex, that caused AIDS.

I must admit to feeling a bit sorry for him and the way he was sent out of office, but he did not deserve to stay given that he has accomplished next to nothing despite the potential for good that he had, both for the region and his own country. Its his own failure to fulfil his and his country’s potential that puts him on the list.

Thabo Mbeki on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki

#8 Nelson Mandela

Ah. We have arrived at possibly the most controversial name on my list. Nelson Mandela. I would wager that many who read this who might have agreed or sympathised with some of my other points would disagree on this one.

I have put Nelson on the list for two reasons, reasons which I believe eclipse his otherwise amazing life and accomplishments, not least of which was keeping South Africa whole post-apartheid and not succumbing to feelings of vengeance and retribution (which he was and is surely entitled to after his treatment).The first reason is much the same as the one I gave for Thabo Mbeki. Nelson Mandela was the one man with the unquestioned moral and political authority to have stopped Robert Mugabe. That he did not could be attributed to his now advanced age, but it would not have taken more than a few press statements and a speech or two to remove the hesitation on the part of regional leaders to unite against the excesses of Mugabe’s regime. The few words and efforts that he did make were no where near what he should have done, and I think were more to play to public opinion rather than any true feeling on his part.

The second reason goes back to few years ago when he publically stated that actions against terrorists in Afghanistan and the imminent war against Iraq was racially motivated and neo-Imperialist in tone. Now, I have my own views about Iraq (more on that on another rant in the future), but I think that Nelson should have known better. A man with his global moral authority and esteem should be more responsible with his statements as they gave a level of moral legitimacy to various anti-war and pro-Islamist lobbies who otherwise would have been restricted to their normal empty rhetoric.

Those are my reasons for putting Nelson on the list. If you disagree, and I am sure that most of you will, argue your case in the comments section.

If you need it, here is Nelson’s wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela

#9 Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez is the the current President of Venezuela. He is a militant left winger who has forged his nation into a dangerously undemocratic power in a region of the world (South America) which has a tenuous grasp on democratic principles at the best of times. Endemic corruption and inefficiency has meant that his countries oil wealth has not really benefited its people – once again, a left-wing leader can be seen ripping off his country.

He is also vociferously opposed to the United States, siding with anyone else who also criticizes them, so he has aligned himself with a really nasty bunch of people over the years, especially many of his OPEC colleagues. He goes one step further through anti-Semitic rhetoric and really seems to revel in the notoriety that his statements and stances grant him.

Putting Chavez in my top ten was not an easy decision given the number of other arseholes out there in the world, but in the long run, I see Chavez as more of a danger to peace and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere than the aging Castros in Cuba, and the sooner that his own people see that he is ripping them off and leading them down a dangerous path the better.

Chavez on Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez

#10 Al Gore

Aaaaa Al Gore. Where did it all go wrong? From the comforting non-existence as Vice President to a very charismatic (and in my opinion effective) President to the worlds leading eco-warrior, picking up a Nobel prize along the way.

Al Gore is really on this list since he is the face of something that really strikes a negative chord with me – environmentalism. Now, I am not an idiot. Pollution is bad. No body likes to cough up a lung after breathing caustic fumes. Recycling is good (although I admittedly don’t do any at the moment), afterall, there is not exactly infinite room on the planet for dumping all of our refuse. I think that these points are a given.

But what really burns my arse is the implication that I should curtail my habits and feel guilty about being a consumer. I resent the notion that the developed world should take on the burden of all anti-pollution initiatives while China throws up coal-burning power stations by the score and the fires associated with deforestation cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere than the entire global air-transport sector. I also get really angry at the “facts” being presented as a fait accompli when there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS about global warming.

So, Al Gore, in making that annoyingly one sided and biased movie, pretty much earned my ire on every one of these points. That he is hailed as such a visionary and paladin of righteousness is nauseating when all he has done is excel at simplistically presenting one side of a complex argument and managing to get it accepted as the one, unblemished and total, truth.Oh yeah, he also “invented” the internet according to him. What a muppet.

Gore’s wiki contenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore

So, that it all – my top ten. I have decided to periodically post some of the runners up – some real idiots, racists, Islamists, bastards, anti-Semites/Zionists, liberals, apologists, appeasers, dictators and wannabe dictators, do-gooders and left-wingers. So far the list has 16 names on it – I am sure that it will grow over time - watch this space.

3 comments:

Galloping Hogan said...

So to focus on just one character on your list...

You claim Hugo Chavez is an undemocratic leader? I might agree a little with you that but a few issues bother me. His time in power has seen less political dictatorial control than Uribe as undertaken in Colombia yet no-one gives him the same amount of attention.

Secondly, Chavez was elected over six times since the late 90's, often by wide majorities. And removing term limits from his presidency isn't exceptional or a threat to democracy by itself. In fact the majority of European countries, including my own IReland, do not have term limits on their leaders.

Thirdly, I don't think he threatens world or regional security! The only nation in that hemisphere that has proved it wants to expand its influence and has undertaken offensive actions against peaceful neighbours in the past fifty years is, of course, America.

Fourthly, do you believe Chavez's criticisms of Bush and the American government translate into an anti-American attitude? I know plenty of Americans who would also fit into that mould who otherwise fly the flag and stand to attention when the national anthem is played. In fact, didn't Citgo and Chavez provide cheap oil to the poor in America that the govt neglected? I know the claims of opportunism will be applied, but actions speak louder than words as they say!

I don't want to say that I'm a 'Chavista' or a supporter of him. I have my concerns too about his rule. But I simply believe that the criticisms of the man seem pretty short sighted and disengenious when taken one by one and examined.

If you want to see my view of the domestic opposition to his rule, visit my blog.

londonbaz said...

Thanks for your comments. An interesting and thought provoking argument and an interesting blog. I think that you are right that there are no real better options in the current opposition in Venezeula. I also agree that he is possibly far better at his job than some of the tin-pot dictators and despots that plague Latin America.

I will concede that you know a lot more about Chavez than I do, but I still think that he is a threat to world security, simply by being as anti-American/Capitalist as he is, and thus his being a focus and catalyst for forces that I think threaten Western society and security.

When it comes to term limits, I have a knee jerk reaction thanks to growing up in Africa - its too close to the establishment of 1 party rule and the death of real democracy for my liking.

Thanks again for the comment and for reading.

Galloping Hogan said...

It's natural to have that reaction against leaders pushing for longer term limits (or their abolition!) especially if coming from nations in which similar tactics are used by dictators. And that's my point, I'm not sure who this Chavez really is. If I was speaking with someone who was neutral on the isue, I'd say I have my doubts and criticisms of the man. But it's that undemoratic and insane oppoisiton groups that scare me away from criticisms which is a bad thing!