Here is another early rant - it was posted around the time of the Geert Wilders incident and is actually the first one that I posted after previously ranting on my daily status updates.
***
I dont know how many of you are familiar with the story of an elected Dutch MP being denied access to Britain even though he was invited by a member of the House of Lords to screen and discuss a short film he had made to support his manifesto of Islam being a dangerous religion that exhorts its followers to violence through the words of the Koran. Our Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, decided that he would be too dangerous to host here due to threatened Moslem protests and promises of Violence. This has, of course, incensed me beyone all measure. Not wanting to spout too much bile and vitriol, I thought that I would just send you some links.
First up is a link to the movie that has caused all the trouble. Its around 15 mins long and worth watching even if you dont agree with views espoused in it. No point in agreeing with him being banned if you havent even bothered to see why (take note Miliband and Brown - watch the film before commenting on its content).
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783
Then here are a couple of articles that I found quite good referring to it, and of course to what banning Geert Wilders (the MP in question) means for us all.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVhODU5MDQ2OTg5OGNmOWJkNjk3MTRlYTg4MGJjZjM=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
The Telegraph article is excellent, and the comments below by members of the public hide some gems as well, especially regards the argument for banning the Koran completely due to its incitement to racial and religious violence, which contravenes EU and most national law. A ridiculous idea of course, but a good example of how far the double standards and appeasement goes.
And in case you want to see a bit more about Geert Wilders himself, here is his Wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders
He is that particularly Dutch type of "right-winger". He is gay friendly, libertarian and vehement in his pursuit of the freedoms that Western Civilization and the traditional permissiveness and liberalism that is part of Dutch culture and history. He is not especially reactionary and religiously conservative, traits that are normally applied to the "right". Nor is he overtly racist - his problem is with a religion and its followers, with the culture of Islam, not the colour of its adherents. He is also not at all anti-semitic, but of course these days, and in one of the ironies of history, that makes him extremely right wing since anti-semitism seems to be the purview of the left these days (witness shameful media coverage of the recent Gaza incidents).
I would also hasten to point out that I do not especially like the fellow or agree with everything that he has to say - I am rather to left of him in most things myself, but the controversy surrounding his quite legitimate right to have his views and express them in the way that he has, not to mention the legality of barring a democratically elected politician from an EU country from the UK, highlights a lot of what is wrong both with the country as a whole and the Labour government in particular. I may have certain un-pc and unfashionable views on the Islamisation of Europe and the perils of multi-cultural hypersensitivity and non-assimilation, but I am no Haider, Le Pen or Griffin myself. Even if you do not agree with ANYTHING that Wilders has to say, I am sure that you agree that he not only has the right to say it, but indeed should be protected from those that would curtail that right.
Friday, 8 May 2009
Facebook Transplant Part 1 - Originally posted 16/2/09 - Palestinian use of Funds
This was one of my first "blogs" post using Facebook notes. Even though it is actually my second post there, it works better as an introduction so I posted it 1st here.
****
Since my recent resolution to keep politics out of my status updates and stick to m facebook “notes” I have decided to do a semi-regular update about things that just annoy the hell out of me and should outrage every right thinking person not blinded by the multiculturally-hypersensitive media PC brigade.
Anyone reading any further should know that I am not at all PC or faddish in my views, and while my personal beliefs are a bewildering and eclectic mix of left, centre, right, liberal, conservative, and authoritarian depending on the issue, I would normally be labelled “extreme right” by most people even if its not true. In all honesty I should admit to a severe pro-Zionist stance when it comes to Israel.
So, what has stoked my ire today? A visit to one of my favourite blogs, http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/, this morning lead me to the following story.http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/02/oddly-enough.html
Yeah – you read right. There is a children’s television programme in Palestine, funded by the Palestinian authorities (and thus by European and NGO aid packages) mind-washing a entirely new generation of young Palestinian kids into growing up to be terrorists. Nice. Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling doesn’t it? I especially like the concept of Assud, the pink jew-eating rabbit. That’s bound to build some bridges and sort out the problems in the region in the next generation isn’t it? Of course, its all understandable and acceptable because, as the media tells us, the evil Israelis are behind EVERY problem in the area (sounds familiar doesn't it? Goebbels would be proud).
Makes me sick and reinforces my resolution to NEVER send donations to charities that will give money to places like Palestine or Africa, no matter how many heart wrenching commercials of urban wreckage and blank eyed waifs are aired. It will almost certainly be diverted to non-humaitarian purposes through corruption, ideology or both. Think about that next time you see a "Gaza Appeal" spot on TV. Your kind hearted donation could very easily go towards perpetuating the problem for an entirely new gneration to struggle with.
****
Since my recent resolution to keep politics out of my status updates and stick to m facebook “notes” I have decided to do a semi-regular update about things that just annoy the hell out of me and should outrage every right thinking person not blinded by the multiculturally-hypersensitive media PC brigade.
Anyone reading any further should know that I am not at all PC or faddish in my views, and while my personal beliefs are a bewildering and eclectic mix of left, centre, right, liberal, conservative, and authoritarian depending on the issue, I would normally be labelled “extreme right” by most people even if its not true. In all honesty I should admit to a severe pro-Zionist stance when it comes to Israel.
So, what has stoked my ire today? A visit to one of my favourite blogs, http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/, this morning lead me to the following story.http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/02/oddly-enough.html
Yeah – you read right. There is a children’s television programme in Palestine, funded by the Palestinian authorities (and thus by European and NGO aid packages) mind-washing a entirely new generation of young Palestinian kids into growing up to be terrorists. Nice. Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling doesn’t it? I especially like the concept of Assud, the pink jew-eating rabbit. That’s bound to build some bridges and sort out the problems in the region in the next generation isn’t it? Of course, its all understandable and acceptable because, as the media tells us, the evil Israelis are behind EVERY problem in the area (sounds familiar doesn't it? Goebbels would be proud).
Makes me sick and reinforces my resolution to NEVER send donations to charities that will give money to places like Palestine or Africa, no matter how many heart wrenching commercials of urban wreckage and blank eyed waifs are aired. It will almost certainly be diverted to non-humaitarian purposes through corruption, ideology or both. Think about that next time you see a "Gaza Appeal" spot on TV. Your kind hearted donation could very easily go towards perpetuating the problem for an entirely new gneration to struggle with.
Its been a very long time, but I am back.
I have been "blogging" on my facebook account of late, and I thought that I would duplicate the posts here just in case anyone wants to follow my ravings here rather than there. I think its also easier to share my musings with a wider audience via this medium should people wish to pass on the URL to others who may be interested. So, for the next few days I will post something from my facebook archives one at a time so that this blog gets "up to date".
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Meanderings on the US Presidential Primaries
Hi all
I am breaking my recent silence (ill health and real life interrupting my flow of bile and vitriol) to chat about the US Presidential primary campaign.
First of all, I am highly amused at the level of coverage that the race is receiving so much coverage over here in the UK. US elections are always covered of course, as you would expect since they are the richest, most powerful nation in the world. But never have I seen such enthusiastic and extensive reporting during such an early stage of the bizarre and convoluted American system for electing their highest office holder.
Why the interest? To my mind there can only be one answer - It is a symptom of what an arsehole GWB is and how much the rest of the world is looking forward to his leaving office, and hopefully dropping off the face of the Earth completely.
That comment may surprise some of you. I am in favour of “humanitarian intervention” and big power interference in the affairs of the global community. I am a self confessed Islamaphobe. I am also totally indifferent to the stamping on the rights of individuals and alienating the communities that present a clear and definite danger to our Western way of life. Being this way, GWB should be one of my idols should he not?
Well, no. The man is a moron, a liar, a hypocrite, a coward, and the worst president in many many years – worse than Nixon in my opinion. I could wax lyrical about the depths of my loathing of the man and the reasons why, but will just leave it at this – he fucked up the whole concept of “humanitarian intervention” and divided the West with his heavy handed ineptitude when we should be united behind the cause of protecting our civilization and our way of life against the insidious influence of the crescent.
Which brings me back to the primaries, and his replacement. Now, I am very politically erractic and mixed up. While I can comfortably hide behind the label of “very conservative”, there are elements of my beliefs that touch socialism, fascism, libertarianism, liberalism and many forms of “-ism”. I male no apologies for this, and in my mind they all form things up the way they should be in an ideal world. Read my manifesto below for an example of this. But what will surprise many of you is that, if I were entitled to, I would almost certainly vote Democrat.
Why? Well, I support a lot of “big government” issues and actually do have a soft spot for the common man (as long as said man doesn’t sit on his arse collecting social benefits for all eternity just because he cannot be bothered to do anything else). I also am rather suspicious of big business and the cabal of oligarchs that often seem to run everything (especially in the bloody EU – but that’s a rant for another time). The comments and ideals that “conservative democrats” often espouse in the US click with me when I encounter them. I also do not believe that a man’s religion, personal life or sexuality have any bearing on his ability to competently lead (as long as he is not doing anything illegal), which would obviously separate me from Republican allegiance.
Which brings us to my next problem, or what would be a problem if I was an American voter. Obama or Clinton. My answer would be Clinton for many reasons, but mainly boiling down to experience – Obama is just too inexperienced in Federal governance to be credible in my opinion, despite the chords he has struck with young voters.
But no matter who I would vote for, it would not matter, since it is my opinion the wrong time to put up a woman or a black man for the US presidency. It’s a sad fact, but an accurate one I fear. I am certain that by going this route, the Democrats are handing the election to McCain, which would be an unmitigated disaster. I just do not believe that middle America is going to embrace either Clinton or Obama as their leader.
Voter apathy is as endemic in the US as it is here – and I think that the frighteningly ignorant people that make up such a huge proportion of the US electorate will actually get off their arses and out of their trailers to cast a vote for the first time ever to avoid a “liberal cry-baby woman” or a “uppity nigger” getting the top job.
And that makes me angry. While I would never vote for Obama, it is not the colour of his skin that alienates me. I do harbour concerns about how he will pay back the support of black voters, but I do actually think that he is a man of enough integrity to avoid being a special interest mouthpiece. The reasons I would not vote for him are policy ones and concerns about his lack of high level leadership experience.
Yet my perspective is coloured by my own social liberalism, which while scarily non-existent compared to the chattering liberal media blinded middle-classes here in the UK, is actually several steps more liberal than most Americans. This relatively objective viewpoint will not, in my opinion, be shared by the vast majority of the American electorate.
Which leaves us all in the crapper. Of the three likely candidates in the presidential race, the almost inevitable winner will be McCain. A man, who while paying lip service to conservatism and support for the military, actually wants to institute changes which will weaken the only country with the balls to fight the War on Terror properly (even if their competence in doing so thus far has been occasionally laughable).
And as you know, or should if you have read some of my posts, the War on Terror is a war that I believe must be fought consistently, unhesitatingly, and to the knife to preserve our way of life.
I know that Obama or Clinton would follow the same path to some extent, but I believe that McCain would do the most damage in the long run.
I just hope that I am wrong and a Democrat gets in – I just do not think I will be.
I am breaking my recent silence (ill health and real life interrupting my flow of bile and vitriol) to chat about the US Presidential primary campaign.
First of all, I am highly amused at the level of coverage that the race is receiving so much coverage over here in the UK. US elections are always covered of course, as you would expect since they are the richest, most powerful nation in the world. But never have I seen such enthusiastic and extensive reporting during such an early stage of the bizarre and convoluted American system for electing their highest office holder.
Why the interest? To my mind there can only be one answer - It is a symptom of what an arsehole GWB is and how much the rest of the world is looking forward to his leaving office, and hopefully dropping off the face of the Earth completely.
That comment may surprise some of you. I am in favour of “humanitarian intervention” and big power interference in the affairs of the global community. I am a self confessed Islamaphobe. I am also totally indifferent to the stamping on the rights of individuals and alienating the communities that present a clear and definite danger to our Western way of life. Being this way, GWB should be one of my idols should he not?
Well, no. The man is a moron, a liar, a hypocrite, a coward, and the worst president in many many years – worse than Nixon in my opinion. I could wax lyrical about the depths of my loathing of the man and the reasons why, but will just leave it at this – he fucked up the whole concept of “humanitarian intervention” and divided the West with his heavy handed ineptitude when we should be united behind the cause of protecting our civilization and our way of life against the insidious influence of the crescent.
Which brings me back to the primaries, and his replacement. Now, I am very politically erractic and mixed up. While I can comfortably hide behind the label of “very conservative”, there are elements of my beliefs that touch socialism, fascism, libertarianism, liberalism and many forms of “-ism”. I male no apologies for this, and in my mind they all form things up the way they should be in an ideal world. Read my manifesto below for an example of this. But what will surprise many of you is that, if I were entitled to, I would almost certainly vote Democrat.
Why? Well, I support a lot of “big government” issues and actually do have a soft spot for the common man (as long as said man doesn’t sit on his arse collecting social benefits for all eternity just because he cannot be bothered to do anything else). I also am rather suspicious of big business and the cabal of oligarchs that often seem to run everything (especially in the bloody EU – but that’s a rant for another time). The comments and ideals that “conservative democrats” often espouse in the US click with me when I encounter them. I also do not believe that a man’s religion, personal life or sexuality have any bearing on his ability to competently lead (as long as he is not doing anything illegal), which would obviously separate me from Republican allegiance.
Which brings us to my next problem, or what would be a problem if I was an American voter. Obama or Clinton. My answer would be Clinton for many reasons, but mainly boiling down to experience – Obama is just too inexperienced in Federal governance to be credible in my opinion, despite the chords he has struck with young voters.
But no matter who I would vote for, it would not matter, since it is my opinion the wrong time to put up a woman or a black man for the US presidency. It’s a sad fact, but an accurate one I fear. I am certain that by going this route, the Democrats are handing the election to McCain, which would be an unmitigated disaster. I just do not believe that middle America is going to embrace either Clinton or Obama as their leader.
Voter apathy is as endemic in the US as it is here – and I think that the frighteningly ignorant people that make up such a huge proportion of the US electorate will actually get off their arses and out of their trailers to cast a vote for the first time ever to avoid a “liberal cry-baby woman” or a “uppity nigger” getting the top job.
And that makes me angry. While I would never vote for Obama, it is not the colour of his skin that alienates me. I do harbour concerns about how he will pay back the support of black voters, but I do actually think that he is a man of enough integrity to avoid being a special interest mouthpiece. The reasons I would not vote for him are policy ones and concerns about his lack of high level leadership experience.
Yet my perspective is coloured by my own social liberalism, which while scarily non-existent compared to the chattering liberal media blinded middle-classes here in the UK, is actually several steps more liberal than most Americans. This relatively objective viewpoint will not, in my opinion, be shared by the vast majority of the American electorate.
Which leaves us all in the crapper. Of the three likely candidates in the presidential race, the almost inevitable winner will be McCain. A man, who while paying lip service to conservatism and support for the military, actually wants to institute changes which will weaken the only country with the balls to fight the War on Terror properly (even if their competence in doing so thus far has been occasionally laughable).
And as you know, or should if you have read some of my posts, the War on Terror is a war that I believe must be fought consistently, unhesitatingly, and to the knife to preserve our way of life.
I know that Obama or Clinton would follow the same path to some extent, but I believe that McCain would do the most damage in the long run.
I just hope that I am wrong and a Democrat gets in – I just do not think I will be.
Saturday, 10 November 2007
My most un-PC meanderings so far...
Hello all,
It’s been a while I know. Not that things have not happened that were rant worthy – they sure as hell have. Its just that many other things have been demanding my time. I apologize if any of you felt bereft of my insightful meanderings (tongue firmly in cheek).
What has catalysed my return to the blogosphere? Well, that can summed up in a name - Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari.
Dr Bari is a Bangladeshi immigrant who heads up the Muslim council of Britain. He is ostensibly a moderate politically, resistant to extremist interpretation of the Koran, and does good work in under privileged school districts as a special needs teacher.
He is also, in my opinion, and absolute muppet. In an interview that is widely being reported today in all sorts of British media, he has warned the British people that we are in danger of becoming like 1930s Nazi Germany.
"Every society has to be really careful so the situation doesn't lead us to a time when people's minds can be poisoned as they were in the 1930s. If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable. We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything and that is not good for any society."
He also claims that Muslims are being unfairly targeted as potential dangers to society, and that there is no such thing as Islamic Terrorists, and that labeling terrorists as Islamic just exacerbates the problem.
As I said, he is a muppet.
I am getting heartily sick of hearing about how victimized the poor poor Moslem community is. I mean – is it unreasonable that, when looking for potential terrorists that we concentrate on the ONLY community in Britain that has spawned home grown suicide bombers? I don’t see Afro-Carribeans blowing themselves up, nor do I see turbaned Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese Communists, Japanese Shintoists, Jews (orthodox or otherwise), Christians, Wiccans, Satanists, Scots Nationalists, Plaid Cymru activists or ANYONE ELSE strapping explosives to themselves and detonating during morning rush hour.
Given that the Moslem community stands alone as a community that has people within its ranks that so opposed to British/Western way of life that they feel the need to kill themselves and take as many innocent people with them as they can, is it illogical that that community is the one that is scrutinized the most?
Most normal people would say yes. And they would be branded Islamophobic racists by both the moderate Moslem majority and the feel good chattering classes. This can easily be seen in the recent Channel 4 show, Britz, which will doubtless spread across the Anglosphere in short order as a syndicated show.
Britz was well written, well acted, and bloody infuriating. Avoiding most spoilers, it is basically about a brother and sister whose parents emigrated from Pakistan. The brother feels proud to be British, and even though he may not agree with all of Britain’s foreign policy choices, feels very patriotic and loyal, so much so that he ends up joining MI-5.
He sister is on the opposite end of the spectrum, becoming increasingly radicalized as the show goes on. At one point she launches into a monologue about how there are no innocents in Britain, that people of non-Moslem communities who tolerate control orders and other legislation that targets Moslems “unfairly” become guilty by association, and are thus enemies of Islam and of the Moslem community. It is this latter point of view that really got my goat.
I mean, if Moslems represent the most obvious danger to the current public safety, and due to their insular nature the communities and individuals are relatively easy to target and monitor, why should we not do so? I am sorry, but if even 99% of the Moslems detained are innocent, but that 1% that is taken off the streets was planning another 7/7 type atrocity, I can live with that. If that makes it easier for radicals to recruit, then that is just more reason to monitor and restrict the Moslem community. It may be a self-perpetuating cycle, but at the end of the day I want my daughter to grow up in the United Kingdom, not the Moslem (or Peoples) Republic of Britain.
If the Moslem community doesn’t like it they have two choices – police themselves far more strictly than our PC-shackled security services ever can, or leave. Yes leave, even those born here. Go back to somewhere under Islamic law where you can marry 9 year olds and beat the shit out of your women. It may hurt our economy, and cheapen our culture, but I would rather that than worry about every Asian bloke with a back-pack and a beard that I see on the tube.
I mean, its not even a matter of assimilation or integration – it’s a matter of respect and tolerance, traits that British people of all colours are expected to demonstrate, and traits that most do in fact possess. It comes down to culture. Are brown, black or yellow people inherently bad or inferior? No. Are their native cultures and religions inherently inferior to our own? No again. But that does not mean that we want to adopt those cultures as our own, nor does it mean that we deserve to be bombed for refusing to do so.
Dr Bari also claims that the British should adopt certain Moslem social traits, such as “assisted” (arranged) marriages and that our society would be better for becoming more like his.
Bollocks. If that was the case, why the hell is he here at all? If traditional Moslem society is so inherently superior, would we not all be flocking to their countries to get rich and gain better opportunities for ourselves and our children? Does their culture have any merit? Yes – but it belongs where it is now, not imposed upon our own.
Much is made of how the UK handled the IRA situation differently. As just about everyone knows, the IRA perpetrated dozens of bombings, amongst other acts, over a period of decades, including causing the death of innocents. But, what is often discounted is that the IRA, at most, had a couple of thousand members, of which a tiny number actually committed crimes on the mainland UK, and that most of the bombings involved warnings so that innocents could be evacuated.
Not to justify or approve of the IRA in any way, but it was a different type of organization with a difference operating mandate and practice. But look at the figures. Hundreds or low thousands involved, yet the head of MI-5 this week said that as many as two thousand TEENAGERS alone were being groomed and radicalized in Britain RIGHT NOW!
I could go on forever, but I will stop for now. The plain truth is that the most current danger to the public welfare of the majority (black, white, yellow, brown and mixed of all religions, cultures, creeds, and sexual orientations) in the UK today is posed by radicalized members of a religious/cultural community. Are all Moslems guilty? Of course not, but it is their responsibility to police their community, to root out the mad dog elements. They have not, so now we are doing it for them, and they cry about it.
And I can’t see the situation changing any time soon – can you?
It’s been a while I know. Not that things have not happened that were rant worthy – they sure as hell have. Its just that many other things have been demanding my time. I apologize if any of you felt bereft of my insightful meanderings (tongue firmly in cheek).
What has catalysed my return to the blogosphere? Well, that can summed up in a name - Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari.
Dr Bari is a Bangladeshi immigrant who heads up the Muslim council of Britain. He is ostensibly a moderate politically, resistant to extremist interpretation of the Koran, and does good work in under privileged school districts as a special needs teacher.
He is also, in my opinion, and absolute muppet. In an interview that is widely being reported today in all sorts of British media, he has warned the British people that we are in danger of becoming like 1930s Nazi Germany.
"Every society has to be really careful so the situation doesn't lead us to a time when people's minds can be poisoned as they were in the 1930s. If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable. We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything and that is not good for any society."
He also claims that Muslims are being unfairly targeted as potential dangers to society, and that there is no such thing as Islamic Terrorists, and that labeling terrorists as Islamic just exacerbates the problem.
As I said, he is a muppet.
I am getting heartily sick of hearing about how victimized the poor poor Moslem community is. I mean – is it unreasonable that, when looking for potential terrorists that we concentrate on the ONLY community in Britain that has spawned home grown suicide bombers? I don’t see Afro-Carribeans blowing themselves up, nor do I see turbaned Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese Communists, Japanese Shintoists, Jews (orthodox or otherwise), Christians, Wiccans, Satanists, Scots Nationalists, Plaid Cymru activists or ANYONE ELSE strapping explosives to themselves and detonating during morning rush hour.
Given that the Moslem community stands alone as a community that has people within its ranks that so opposed to British/Western way of life that they feel the need to kill themselves and take as many innocent people with them as they can, is it illogical that that community is the one that is scrutinized the most?
Most normal people would say yes. And they would be branded Islamophobic racists by both the moderate Moslem majority and the feel good chattering classes. This can easily be seen in the recent Channel 4 show, Britz, which will doubtless spread across the Anglosphere in short order as a syndicated show.
Britz was well written, well acted, and bloody infuriating. Avoiding most spoilers, it is basically about a brother and sister whose parents emigrated from Pakistan. The brother feels proud to be British, and even though he may not agree with all of Britain’s foreign policy choices, feels very patriotic and loyal, so much so that he ends up joining MI-5.
He sister is on the opposite end of the spectrum, becoming increasingly radicalized as the show goes on. At one point she launches into a monologue about how there are no innocents in Britain, that people of non-Moslem communities who tolerate control orders and other legislation that targets Moslems “unfairly” become guilty by association, and are thus enemies of Islam and of the Moslem community. It is this latter point of view that really got my goat.
I mean, if Moslems represent the most obvious danger to the current public safety, and due to their insular nature the communities and individuals are relatively easy to target and monitor, why should we not do so? I am sorry, but if even 99% of the Moslems detained are innocent, but that 1% that is taken off the streets was planning another 7/7 type atrocity, I can live with that. If that makes it easier for radicals to recruit, then that is just more reason to monitor and restrict the Moslem community. It may be a self-perpetuating cycle, but at the end of the day I want my daughter to grow up in the United Kingdom, not the Moslem (or Peoples) Republic of Britain.
If the Moslem community doesn’t like it they have two choices – police themselves far more strictly than our PC-shackled security services ever can, or leave. Yes leave, even those born here. Go back to somewhere under Islamic law where you can marry 9 year olds and beat the shit out of your women. It may hurt our economy, and cheapen our culture, but I would rather that than worry about every Asian bloke with a back-pack and a beard that I see on the tube.
I mean, its not even a matter of assimilation or integration – it’s a matter of respect and tolerance, traits that British people of all colours are expected to demonstrate, and traits that most do in fact possess. It comes down to culture. Are brown, black or yellow people inherently bad or inferior? No. Are their native cultures and religions inherently inferior to our own? No again. But that does not mean that we want to adopt those cultures as our own, nor does it mean that we deserve to be bombed for refusing to do so.
Dr Bari also claims that the British should adopt certain Moslem social traits, such as “assisted” (arranged) marriages and that our society would be better for becoming more like his.
Bollocks. If that was the case, why the hell is he here at all? If traditional Moslem society is so inherently superior, would we not all be flocking to their countries to get rich and gain better opportunities for ourselves and our children? Does their culture have any merit? Yes – but it belongs where it is now, not imposed upon our own.
Much is made of how the UK handled the IRA situation differently. As just about everyone knows, the IRA perpetrated dozens of bombings, amongst other acts, over a period of decades, including causing the death of innocents. But, what is often discounted is that the IRA, at most, had a couple of thousand members, of which a tiny number actually committed crimes on the mainland UK, and that most of the bombings involved warnings so that innocents could be evacuated.
Not to justify or approve of the IRA in any way, but it was a different type of organization with a difference operating mandate and practice. But look at the figures. Hundreds or low thousands involved, yet the head of MI-5 this week said that as many as two thousand TEENAGERS alone were being groomed and radicalized in Britain RIGHT NOW!
I could go on forever, but I will stop for now. The plain truth is that the most current danger to the public welfare of the majority (black, white, yellow, brown and mixed of all religions, cultures, creeds, and sexual orientations) in the UK today is posed by radicalized members of a religious/cultural community. Are all Moslems guilty? Of course not, but it is their responsibility to police their community, to root out the mad dog elements. They have not, so now we are doing it for them, and they cry about it.
And I can’t see the situation changing any time soon – can you?
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Meanderings on Zimbabwe...
Hello all,
I was pleased to see that, finally, a senior African personage resident in the UK has finally called for the stronger measures against the revolting regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
His Grace the Archbishop of York, Ugandan born John Sentamu, has been waxing lyrical in various media over the last few days about how its time for Britain to shed its “colonial guilt” and for Gordon Brown to take the lead in imposing strict sanctions against Zimbabwe, and to encourage other EU states to put pressure on Mugabe and his cronies through limitations on their diplomatic prerogatives in their embassies (which are being used as fronts to circumvent EU financial and travel restrictions on members of the ruling circle).
Which is all well and good. I am sure that most people would be hard pressed to deny that Robert Mugabe deserves even more pressure than sanctions, that he has destroyed a vibrant, prosperous nation through his megalomaniacal need to retain power over an increasingly poor and decrepit nation-state. I have been amazed that what is going on in Zimbabwe has been allowed to do so for so long, ascribing it to misplaced colonial guilt, much as Archbishop Sentamu has.
But its all too little too late. Why has it taken almost a decade of increasingly blatant oppression and insanity on the part of Mugabe for this point to be made by a senior, globally important African man? (For those of you who don’t know, York is the second most senior Archibishopric in the Anglican Communion – in essence Sentamu is the second most powerful man in the Anglican Communion after the Archbishop of Canterbury).
At a recent summit of African leaders, Mugabe was given a standing ovation. He is seen as a hero by many black Africans, peasant and politician alike, as a stalwart warrior against the legacy of colonialism. His methods and rhetoric are parroted in several countries, most worryingly in Namibia and South Africa, who have thus far managed to avoid the seemingly inevitable slide into anarchy that typifies post-colonial Africa.
Even Archbishop Sentamu himself said that it is “now time” to take action since the diplomatic efforts of African leaders have failed to reign in Mugabe’s excesses. Now time? Come on! Where the hell have influential Africans like Sentamu been for the last decade? Mugabe should have been stamped on hard around the turn of the century, either by major African power players like South Africa, or by the UK and damned be the politically-incorrect fallout.
The Archbishop has even spoken to Gordon Brown, and the general feeling is that some sort of stern worded message will be forthcoming soon. Big deal. A stern worded message that will be ignored, and another opportunity to avert a Uganda/Amin style tragedy in Zimbabwe will be lost.
What we need is someone to take a damned stand against this “boys club” of ex-communist leaders now in positions of national leadership in Africa and let them know that yes, the colonial past does have more than its fair share of injustice and exploitation, and yes part of the responsibility for Africa’s current state can be laid at the feet of the old colonial powers; but that this same colonial past is no excuse for the blatantly racist, corrupt, criminal, short-sighted, malicious persecution and destruction of their own countries.
Archbishop Sentamu is not the first senior black African churchman to make this stand, only the most high profile. Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo has been one of the most valiant and vocal opponents of Mugabe for several years now. But we need more than just Churchmen to stand up and be counted. It is time for the UK and the EU to stop playing politically correct games and get over their un-necessary colonial guilt complexes and treat African nations and leaders as mature peers – which means holding them up to the same standards that are expected in the West. No more excuses. No more unconditional aid. No more colonial guilt cards to be played by either side.
Mad dogs like Mugabe would never be tolerated as a head of a European state. He should not be tolerated as the leader of an African one either, especially as a leader who seemingly can get away with anything he bloody well pleases with the only “sternly worded” diplomatic messages as a punishment. Its time to get tough before we see a spontaneous revolution in Zimbabwe that will leave that shattered country in an even worse condition that it is now – perhaps even see massacres and pogroms that will make Rwanda look like a tea-party spat.
So yes, it is “now time” Archbishop Sentamu. It has “been time” for years, thanks for noticing. Now lets hope someone else does too, someone who is willing and able to do something about it.
I was pleased to see that, finally, a senior African personage resident in the UK has finally called for the stronger measures against the revolting regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
His Grace the Archbishop of York, Ugandan born John Sentamu, has been waxing lyrical in various media over the last few days about how its time for Britain to shed its “colonial guilt” and for Gordon Brown to take the lead in imposing strict sanctions against Zimbabwe, and to encourage other EU states to put pressure on Mugabe and his cronies through limitations on their diplomatic prerogatives in their embassies (which are being used as fronts to circumvent EU financial and travel restrictions on members of the ruling circle).
Which is all well and good. I am sure that most people would be hard pressed to deny that Robert Mugabe deserves even more pressure than sanctions, that he has destroyed a vibrant, prosperous nation through his megalomaniacal need to retain power over an increasingly poor and decrepit nation-state. I have been amazed that what is going on in Zimbabwe has been allowed to do so for so long, ascribing it to misplaced colonial guilt, much as Archbishop Sentamu has.
But its all too little too late. Why has it taken almost a decade of increasingly blatant oppression and insanity on the part of Mugabe for this point to be made by a senior, globally important African man? (For those of you who don’t know, York is the second most senior Archibishopric in the Anglican Communion – in essence Sentamu is the second most powerful man in the Anglican Communion after the Archbishop of Canterbury).
At a recent summit of African leaders, Mugabe was given a standing ovation. He is seen as a hero by many black Africans, peasant and politician alike, as a stalwart warrior against the legacy of colonialism. His methods and rhetoric are parroted in several countries, most worryingly in Namibia and South Africa, who have thus far managed to avoid the seemingly inevitable slide into anarchy that typifies post-colonial Africa.
Even Archbishop Sentamu himself said that it is “now time” to take action since the diplomatic efforts of African leaders have failed to reign in Mugabe’s excesses. Now time? Come on! Where the hell have influential Africans like Sentamu been for the last decade? Mugabe should have been stamped on hard around the turn of the century, either by major African power players like South Africa, or by the UK and damned be the politically-incorrect fallout.
The Archbishop has even spoken to Gordon Brown, and the general feeling is that some sort of stern worded message will be forthcoming soon. Big deal. A stern worded message that will be ignored, and another opportunity to avert a Uganda/Amin style tragedy in Zimbabwe will be lost.
What we need is someone to take a damned stand against this “boys club” of ex-communist leaders now in positions of national leadership in Africa and let them know that yes, the colonial past does have more than its fair share of injustice and exploitation, and yes part of the responsibility for Africa’s current state can be laid at the feet of the old colonial powers; but that this same colonial past is no excuse for the blatantly racist, corrupt, criminal, short-sighted, malicious persecution and destruction of their own countries.
Archbishop Sentamu is not the first senior black African churchman to make this stand, only the most high profile. Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo has been one of the most valiant and vocal opponents of Mugabe for several years now. But we need more than just Churchmen to stand up and be counted. It is time for the UK and the EU to stop playing politically correct games and get over their un-necessary colonial guilt complexes and treat African nations and leaders as mature peers – which means holding them up to the same standards that are expected in the West. No more excuses. No more unconditional aid. No more colonial guilt cards to be played by either side.
Mad dogs like Mugabe would never be tolerated as a head of a European state. He should not be tolerated as the leader of an African one either, especially as a leader who seemingly can get away with anything he bloody well pleases with the only “sternly worded” diplomatic messages as a punishment. Its time to get tough before we see a spontaneous revolution in Zimbabwe that will leave that shattered country in an even worse condition that it is now – perhaps even see massacres and pogroms that will make Rwanda look like a tea-party spat.
So yes, it is “now time” Archbishop Sentamu. It has “been time” for years, thanks for noticing. Now lets hope someone else does too, someone who is willing and able to do something about it.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
I am back, and some meanderings on Climate Change...
Hello all,
I know its been a while since I last posted, and apologize to anyone who was waiting. The passing of my mother-in-law threw everything into a bit of a spin for a while and real life took total priority over everything else I am afraid.
Now, obviously, that has not stopped my mind latching onto things that I feel like ranting about. I could wax lyrical over the most recent of events to get my goat – the way the press handles the hand-over of Basra to the Iraqis, the shocking twist in the search for Madeleine McCann (I never did trust her parents for some reason), the regular diet of health related scare headlines etc.
These are just a tasted of what caught my attention, and I may expound upon my feelings regarding these things in due course, amongst many other topics. However, today I reserve the bile that has built up in my spleen over the last few weeks for one of the most annoying and pointless topics to enthral the chattering classes lately – climate change.
It was while watching a show called “Dumped” on TV a couple of weeks ago that I really started becoming aggravated. The premise was simple – get a bunch of volunteers for an eco-themed TV show, don’t tell them where they are being sent, then drop them off on a landfill site and get them to show everyone how extravagant we are with what we throw away by thriving on the dump.
Throughout the show, contestants who did not buy into the whole ‘make the world a better place through sleeping in piles of crap’ were given a patronising commentary, bullied by the slightly scary hard-core eco-warriors in the group, and harangued for lack of effort and vision by the shows revolting ‘expert guide’, Rob Holdaway, who seemed unable to understand why the group was not building five bedroom palaces using the detritus of society.
The attitudes of Holdaway, and the tone of the show in general, really got to me. The basic fact that we, as a prosperous 1st world society, throw away excessive amounts of rubbish that could be put to further use by someone enterprising, interested, or desperately poor enough to try is no surprise to most people. The implication, however, that those who do not try and use every article of crap left over from our daily lives to the absolute extreme permutations of usefulness are somehow deficient is, frankly, insulting.
Yet this attitude seems to becoming more prevalent in society. Local Councils in the UK force recycling through various methods – sometimes refusing to collect your refuse unless you sort through the recycleables. Others level fines. There is talk about increasing council tax on homes that produce “excessive waste”.
More than just about any other Anglophone country, the UK has bought whole heartedly into the ‘climate change is without doubt our fault’ theory, and this is spreading to all aspects of life, including an increasing fanaticism about recylcing. Once again, the communal societal guilt about our own prosperity that possesses the chattering classes is getting in the way of the lives of the silent majority of normal people in the country.
Not that I am actually against recycling in principle – it makes sense to do so within reasonable limits. What annoys me is that those who are less than rabidly enthusiastic about doing so are labelled as somehow deviant and callous. Likewise, I don’t oppose cutting down on other pollutants, although mainly this is due to a selfish personal desire to lower the levels of carcinogens that I come into contact with on a daily basis.
But the idea that me, as an individual, is responsible for climate change, pollution, and hundreds of thousands of tons of waste every year, that I as an individual am killing our planet and setting us on a course for global apocalypse is nonsense. What is worse is that the chattering classes that control the media would have me think that I can somehow have an impact on solving the world’s environmental problems.
While developing economies such as India, China, Indonesia, Brazil etc continue their rapid and impressive growth with an impressive disregard for pollution output and gas emissions, what possible difference can I make in my modest Buckinghamshire home? Does my not recycling my cans really make much difference when China is throwing up coal-fuelled power stations on an almost daily basis? While the great unwashed of Europe and can fly hither and yon on budget airlines for a financial pittance, generating more pollution in one flight than my car will in an entire year?
Please.
It is amazing though how many people buy into this rubbish. Individuals can have a negligible impact on environmental issues, even if they are inclined to commit themselves wholeheartedly to the effort. As always, its government and big business that truly have the say – and in this case, the worlds ecological future (again, if you believe the hype about global warming) is in the hands of governments and big business in countries which have spent decades getting this far in a quest to achieve the prosperity of the west, and who are hardly going to stop what they are doing because we say so.
Until a scientific community, which is almost evenly split in opinion, can categorically agree that human activity is either causing climate change, or at least speeding up the process we will get no-where. And even then, once the scientific community reaches consensus, it will be up to the developed world to reign in the developing – not up to you and me to cut down on how much crap we throw away every week.
To partially steal a line from Mr Gore, the “inconvenient truth” is that nothing that you, I, or even the UK, can have any effect on the greater global output of pollution, green house gases etc and even thinking that an individual can do anything about it is a terrifying level of hubris and self delusion.
I know its been a while since I last posted, and apologize to anyone who was waiting. The passing of my mother-in-law threw everything into a bit of a spin for a while and real life took total priority over everything else I am afraid.
Now, obviously, that has not stopped my mind latching onto things that I feel like ranting about. I could wax lyrical over the most recent of events to get my goat – the way the press handles the hand-over of Basra to the Iraqis, the shocking twist in the search for Madeleine McCann (I never did trust her parents for some reason), the regular diet of health related scare headlines etc.
These are just a tasted of what caught my attention, and I may expound upon my feelings regarding these things in due course, amongst many other topics. However, today I reserve the bile that has built up in my spleen over the last few weeks for one of the most annoying and pointless topics to enthral the chattering classes lately – climate change.
It was while watching a show called “Dumped” on TV a couple of weeks ago that I really started becoming aggravated. The premise was simple – get a bunch of volunteers for an eco-themed TV show, don’t tell them where they are being sent, then drop them off on a landfill site and get them to show everyone how extravagant we are with what we throw away by thriving on the dump.
Throughout the show, contestants who did not buy into the whole ‘make the world a better place through sleeping in piles of crap’ were given a patronising commentary, bullied by the slightly scary hard-core eco-warriors in the group, and harangued for lack of effort and vision by the shows revolting ‘expert guide’, Rob Holdaway, who seemed unable to understand why the group was not building five bedroom palaces using the detritus of society.
The attitudes of Holdaway, and the tone of the show in general, really got to me. The basic fact that we, as a prosperous 1st world society, throw away excessive amounts of rubbish that could be put to further use by someone enterprising, interested, or desperately poor enough to try is no surprise to most people. The implication, however, that those who do not try and use every article of crap left over from our daily lives to the absolute extreme permutations of usefulness are somehow deficient is, frankly, insulting.
Yet this attitude seems to becoming more prevalent in society. Local Councils in the UK force recycling through various methods – sometimes refusing to collect your refuse unless you sort through the recycleables. Others level fines. There is talk about increasing council tax on homes that produce “excessive waste”.
More than just about any other Anglophone country, the UK has bought whole heartedly into the ‘climate change is without doubt our fault’ theory, and this is spreading to all aspects of life, including an increasing fanaticism about recylcing. Once again, the communal societal guilt about our own prosperity that possesses the chattering classes is getting in the way of the lives of the silent majority of normal people in the country.
Not that I am actually against recycling in principle – it makes sense to do so within reasonable limits. What annoys me is that those who are less than rabidly enthusiastic about doing so are labelled as somehow deviant and callous. Likewise, I don’t oppose cutting down on other pollutants, although mainly this is due to a selfish personal desire to lower the levels of carcinogens that I come into contact with on a daily basis.
But the idea that me, as an individual, is responsible for climate change, pollution, and hundreds of thousands of tons of waste every year, that I as an individual am killing our planet and setting us on a course for global apocalypse is nonsense. What is worse is that the chattering classes that control the media would have me think that I can somehow have an impact on solving the world’s environmental problems.
While developing economies such as India, China, Indonesia, Brazil etc continue their rapid and impressive growth with an impressive disregard for pollution output and gas emissions, what possible difference can I make in my modest Buckinghamshire home? Does my not recycling my cans really make much difference when China is throwing up coal-fuelled power stations on an almost daily basis? While the great unwashed of Europe and can fly hither and yon on budget airlines for a financial pittance, generating more pollution in one flight than my car will in an entire year?
Please.
It is amazing though how many people buy into this rubbish. Individuals can have a negligible impact on environmental issues, even if they are inclined to commit themselves wholeheartedly to the effort. As always, its government and big business that truly have the say – and in this case, the worlds ecological future (again, if you believe the hype about global warming) is in the hands of governments and big business in countries which have spent decades getting this far in a quest to achieve the prosperity of the west, and who are hardly going to stop what they are doing because we say so.
Until a scientific community, which is almost evenly split in opinion, can categorically agree that human activity is either causing climate change, or at least speeding up the process we will get no-where. And even then, once the scientific community reaches consensus, it will be up to the developed world to reign in the developing – not up to you and me to cut down on how much crap we throw away every week.
To partially steal a line from Mr Gore, the “inconvenient truth” is that nothing that you, I, or even the UK, can have any effect on the greater global output of pollution, green house gases etc and even thinking that an individual can do anything about it is a terrifying level of hubris and self delusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
